Docstoc

Truth about waitangi treaty

Document Sample
Truth about waitangi treaty Powered By Docstoc
					                        Web page link http://www.celticnz.co.nz/The%20Treaty%20of%20Waitangi.htm

                                      THE TRUTH ABOUT THE TREATY OF WAITANGI

                                     THE PLUNDERING OF NEW ZEALAND SINCE 1975.

WHY A TREATY...recounted by Ross Baker, Historian.

Many books written as to why New Zealand needed a treaty are so complicated and in many cases biased that few take the time to
read all these and extract the facts. If we are to understand the Treaty, then first we must understand why it was instigated and by
whom.

For ten years prior to the Treaty, the Missionaries had tried to encourage the Maoris to form their own independent government and
state, but the chiefs, as always, could not agree between themselves and in the end it became evident that New Zealand must become a
British Colony under British Sovereignty if the Maoris were to survive*.

(*From 1814, Samuel Marsden, one of the first missionaries in New Zealand, gave the Maoris an introduction to the British
Government by inviting them to Australia. Some even remained to obtain an education. The Maoris knew of the British
Government in these early times. Some worked on British and foreign ships as crew. Ngapuhi chief Hongi made a trip to
England in 1820 to meet the King. On his return to New Zealand he stopped off in Australia and traded all the gifts the King
had given him on 300 muskets and then initiated a ten year period of warfare and cannibalism on his fellow countrymen,
slaughtering thousands for no apparent reason).

After Cook's three exploratory voyages (commencing) in the 1760's and the establishment of a British penal colony in Australia, trade
and Christianity came to New Zealand. British, French and American vessels began visiting New Zealand harbours in the late 18th
century to refresh and refit. From the early 1800's commercial trading started in New Zealand with timber, flax, shore whaling, ship
building and general trade with the Maoris and non-Maoris who had established themselves in New Zealand. By the 1830's the coast
was dotted with trade settlers as well as several missionaries who had also purchased land and set up home. However, after 1830
purchases of land grew until there were quite large acreages of land owned by non-Maori. By 1839 there were 2000 permanent
settlers, 28 on-shore fisheries and many commercial ventures in flax, timber and ship building, plus general and domestic trade by
non-Maori. The capital invested in New Zealand was made known by Hobson to the Colonial Office in his report in 1837 as well as in
a letter to his wife in the same year.



                                                                                                                                       1
Up until 1832 the British or Imperial Government was reluctant to intervene in New Zealand, but as more and more settlers arrived
and trade and investments expanded, the British Government felt responsible for her people and their investments as well as the
Maoris. They did pass three acts in 1817, 1823 and 1828 in an attempt to bring law and order, but as New Zealand was outside the
British Dominion, these were unsuccessful. In 1820, after Hongi had slaughtered many thousands of the Thames Maoris, they
requested that Britain afford them protection.

By the early 1830's trade between New Zealand had become so intense that there could be up to 30 ships at anchor and 1000 seamen
on shore at any one time but still no law to control them or the Maoris. The 1828 Act did empower the courts to deal with crimes by
British subjects but these had to be heard in Sydney and therefore it was difficult to get all parties together at the same time.

While British interests and investments continued to increase and become predominant at the time, French and American activity was
also on the increase. This worried the British as they were beginning to build up large capital investments in New Zealand but with no
protection if New Zealand was annexed by another nation.

Many events sparked off Maori appeals to Britain for protection. The first in 1831 when it was rumoured that the French naval vessel
La Favourite intended to annex New Zealand to France in retaliation for the killing of Marion du Fresne and his crew. The Maoris
even discussed a letter to the King asking for his protection but decided on placing a British flag on the mission flagstaff, reasoning
that if the French tore it down, the missionaries would appeal to Britain for protection. After this 13 powerful northern chiefs did send
a letter to the King asking him to become their friend, guardian and protector of these islands.




                                                                                                                                        2
                                                 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.

                                                                                                                                      3
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.

* France.
This is a very interesting document and gives a true indication of the feelings of the Maoris in New Zealand in 1831.

The second (event) was when the Ngati Toa of Kapiti conspired with the English captain of the Elizabeth to raid and kill members of
the Ngati Tahu of the South Island. The culprits avoided punishment due to the uncertainties regarding British subjects in New
Zealand. Northern Maoris were disturbed by the alliance of the Maoris and the British, fearing it could set a precedence for their
enemies. These events and the calls of the settlers persuaded the Colonial Office to appoint a British Resident to New Zealand, not
only to bring law, order and protection to the people, but also to British trade and investment from a foreign invasion.

There was also a threat from Baron Charles Philippe Hippolyte de Thierry to declare a French Sovereignty over New Zealand. He had
purchased a large area of land at Hokianga and it was rumoured that he had summoned a French warship to enforce his Sovereignty as



                                                                                                                                      4
well as a body guard of Tahitian trained Maoris to sustain it. The French Government also expressed interest to appoint de Thierry to
the office of French Consul to New Zealand.

As well as Maori appeals to Britain for protection, there was still the memory by the settlers of the slaughter of 70 crew and
passengers, including women and children, by the Maoris when the "Boyd" arrived in New Zealand waters in 1814.

These were just a few of the events which made it inevitable that the British would have to have some legal control over New Zealand
for the benefit of all, especially the Maoris whose population was diminishing so quickly now that they had the musket that it was
feared they would soon disappear.

THE RESIDENT

In 1832, the decision was finally taken to appoint James Busby as Resident to New Zealand. Busby was to be an intermediary between
the races but without forces this was virtually impossible. For example, in 1834 the Harriet went aground at Cape Egmont and some of
the crew were killed by local Maoris. The Alligator then bombarded the pa destroying canoes and killing many Maoris in retaliation,
but Busby could do little to help as he had no forces. Faced with brawling, boundary disputes, stock losses, theft, assault and murder,
plus the never ending fighting between the tribes, Busby could do little but arbitrate. The Maoris as well as the settlers started asking
where was the protection that they had been promised by the King with Busby's arrival.

Large areas of land and forests were being sold by the Maoris at this time to individual settlers and the New Zealand Company, a
company set up to purchase land from the Maoris and later the Imperial Government, and then send out settlers from Britain to
purchase it at a profit. The Maoris were also travelling to Australia to sell land, which in some cases they did not own, did not have the
authority to sell or sold many times over. This caused much unrest resulting in war between the tribes with some settlers and their
families being killed when they tried to claim their purchases. For example, Kapiti Island was sold to five different buyers, Poirua was
sold to eight and Taranaki was sold, fought over, returned and bought again so many times, it's difficult to remember. Busby's
instructions were to direct the Maoris towards a form of united Government or collective Maori Sovereignty to stop inter-tribal
fighting and bring law and order to all the people of New Zealand.

DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

In 1834 Busby introduced a national flag to New Zealand to give recognition to her Sovereignty and Independent Status and to be
carried by all New Zealand built ships as well as being displayed on shore. This led to 34 chiefs signing a Declaration of Independence
in 1835 with the King giving his assurance that he would protect the Maoris and their land as long as it was consistent with the just

                                                                                                                                        5
rights of others and the interests of the British Subjects. If Britain wanted to formally intervene now, the independent status of the
country would have to be nullified with the consent of the Maoris. This did give Britain an advantage as she was now the protector
and therefore would have some input into the control of law making of the country as well as protection of her people and
investments.

                                                            (Translation)

                                 DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE OF NEW ZEALAND


1. We, the hereditary chiefs and heads of the tribes of the Northern parts of New Zealand, being assembled at Waitangi in the
Bay of Islands, on this 28th day of October, 1835, declare the Independence of our country, which is hereby constituted and
declared to be an Independent State, under the designation of the United Tribes of New Zealand.
2. All sovereign power and authority within the territories of the United Tribes of New Zealand is hereby declared to reside
entirely and exclusively in the hereditary chiefs and heads of tribes in collective capacity, who also declare that they will not
permit any legislative authority separate from themselves in their collective capacity to exist, nor any function of government
to be exercised within the said territories, unless by persons appointed by them, and acting under the authority of laws
regularly enacted by them in Congress assembled.
3. The hereditary chiefs and heads of tribes agree to meet in Congress at Waitangi in the autumn of each year, for the purpose
of framing laws for the dispensation of justice, the preservation of peace and good order and the regulation of trade; and they
cordially invite the Southern tribes to lay aside their private animosities and to consult the safety and welfare of our common
country, by joining the Confederation of the United Tribes.
4. They also agree to send a copy of this Declaration to His Majesty the King of England, to thank Him for his
acknowledgement of their flag; and in return for the friendship and protection they have shown, and are prepared to show, to
such of his subjects as have settled in their country, or resorted to its shores for the purposes of trade, they entreat that they
will continue to be parent to their infant State and that he will become its Protector from all attempts upon its independence.

Agreed to unanimously on the 28th day of October 1835, in the presence of His Britannic Majesty's Resident.

(Here follows the signatures or marks of thirty five Hereditary Chiefs or Heads of tribes, which form a fair representation of
the tribes of New Zealand from the North Cpe to the latitude of the River Thames.




                                                                                                                                     6
English witnesses:-
(Signed) Henry Williams, Missionary, C.M.S.
George Clarke, C.M.S.
James C. Clendon, Merchant.
Gilbert Mair, Merchant.

I certify that the above is a correct copy of the Declaration of the Chiefs, according to translation of Missionaries who have
resided ten years and upwards in the country; and it is transmitted to His Most Gracious Majesty the King of England, at the
unanimous request of the chiefs.

(Signed) James Busby
British Resident at New Zealand

The signatures to this declaration pledged to assemble annually to form laws for the promotion of peace, justice and trade, but the ever
present inter-tribal tension and fighting took precedence over political cooperation, as always, and it was abandoned. It finally became
evident that the chiefs could never form a united working Government.

Early in 1837, a serious outbreak of inter-tribal fighting began in many parts of New Zealand. Up until this time the Maoris had been
cultivating their land and had built up large gardens, orchards and flax plantations but had exchanged most of the produce for muskets
and powder. The temptation now was to abandon and neglect all this and settle old scores with their rival tribes once they had
sufficient fire power. What they had achieved since the Europeans arrived was destroyed for ever by their own hand and the
will to fight.

The settlers, traders, missionaries and 192 chiefs wanted more than a half hearted official commitment represented by Busby and
appealed to Britain for more effective Government. As tribal fighting increased and the Maori population decreased, Britain had to
take more control as she had promised to protect the people and their property. To do this, New Zealand had to become a British
Colony, even although the Colonial Office in Britain wanted only limited Government intervention, it was now evident that the
Maoris could never form a Government to bring law, order and protection to the people of New Zealand.

For New Zealand to become a British Colony, Britain had to obtain the Maori's consent to Sovereignty over the whole land
without force.




                                                                                                                                       7
For two years the Colonial Office debated the best way to become involved in New Zealand and it was decided, but with extreme
reluctance*, to send William Hobson to New Zealand to negotiate a cession of Sovereignty from the Maoris and to set up Government
to bring law, order and protection and to investigate and settle land sales, titles and disputes.

*Because of New Zealand's isolation from Britain (half a world away at the uttermost parts of the Earth), the extreme
difficulties to shipping over such a vast distance, delays in communication, the everpresent volatile nature of inter-tribal
fighting, lawlessness amongst an international mix of visitors and general unrest, Britain had only luke-warm, reluctant
interest in establishing a colony. To get some appreciation of their attitude, see: The Treaty of Waitangi, by T. Lyndsay Buick,
Thomas Avery & Son, 1933.

It was finally decided that the best way to accomplish this was by a treaty, if possible. To do this, first the British had to obtain
Sovereignty over the whole land, second, all Maori and non-Maori land and property titles must be verified, third, any land the Maoris
wanted to sell must be sold only to the Queen's representative, and fourth, the Maoris must be protected and guaranteed access to all
the benefits of British civilisation and law if they consented to the first three conditions.

WILLIAM HOBSON, THE QUEEN'S TREATY REPRESENTATIVE

Queen Victoria sent William Hobson to New Zealand in 1840 to draft and sign a Treaty with the Aboriginal Natives of New Zealand
to give, as requested by them on many occasions, a Government for law, order and mainly protection. Not only from a foreign
invasion but also from themselves as 80,000 had already been killed in the inter-tribal wars

The Treaty is a very simple document. It contains five parts, the pre-amble which is the main agreement setting out the reasons for the
Treaty, three short articles giving Maori the same rights as the British subjects "inherited" when New Zealand became British soil and
the chief's consent and understanding of the Treaty. Unfortunately, the pre-amble, article one and three are overlooked by today's
negotiators and Government.

Below is a simplified summary of the Treaty which was signed on the 6th of February, 1840 at Waitangi by 46 chiefs, nine non-Maori
and William Hobson.

The Pre-amble: The main agreement setting out the reason for a Treaty and to cede Maori sovereignty to Her Majesty.

Article 1: The Aborigines of New Zealand to give up forever, their governorship to Her Majesty.


                                                                                                                                      8
Article 2: Consists of two parts.
· The Queen guarantees to Maori the ownership of their taonga/ property and possessions at the time of signing. The same as a British
subject.

· The Maoris must agree that the Queen or her representatives could purchase those pieces of land for a price, which the rightful owner
agreed and was willing to sell.

Article 3: If the Maoris agreed to the preamble, article one and two, then the Queen would protect them and guarantee to them all the
rights of a British subject. No more - no less.

The Consent: The consent from the chiefs that they fully understood the meaning of the words of the Treaty and consented to them
all.

The Signing: The signing of the Maori version of the Treaty by 46 Chiefs, nine non-Maori and Governor Hobson at Waitangi on the
6th of February 1840 and visually witnessed by many hundred Maori, missionaries and settlers.

After each chief signed the Treaty, Hobson shook their hand and repeated, "He iwi tahi tatou - we are now one people", followed by
three hearty cheers from the whole gathering and an agreement between two peoples was sealed forever.

The Treaty was an agreement between two peoples having the authority and agreeing between themselves to wide powers affecting
them both. But after the Treaty was signed the Maoris had ceded/given up forever their Sovereignty/ authority/ partnership to the
British in return for protection and one law for all people of New Zealand. From this point on all the people of New Zealand became
one people under one law, one flag and with equal rights.
As Sir Apirana Ngata stated, "if you think these things are wrong, then blame your ancestors when they gave away their
rights when they were strong".
Hobson claimed British Sovereignty on the 21st May, 1840 over the North Island by Treaty and over the South Island by discovery.
The Proclamations were published in the London Gazette on October the 2nd 1840 and New Zealand became a Crown Colony.

As can be seen from this Treaty, time or condition does not alter it in any way. In "fact" it is a very simple document unless someone
distorts its translation and interpretation as is happening today which we as New Zealanders must stop.

At the time of drafting the Treaty, large areas of land and forests, as well as 28 known on shore fisheries plus many general businesses
were owned and operated by non-Maori, a very large British investment. This was the reason for Hobson changing the wording of

                                                                                                                                         9
Busby's draft in article two to include, "All the people of New Zealand", and not just the Maoris as we are led to believe today. It was
also British policy that all British subjects and their property would be protected wherever they settled, a point that was voiced on
many occasions. What this Treaty actually did was to advance New Zealand and its people by 1000 years to one of the most advanced
societies in the world at the time. Unlike the way in-which all other indigenous people were treated, the British took the Maoris with
them completely, with all the same rights as British subjects.

THE MAKING OF THE TREATY OF WAITANGI

There is no evidence that William Hobson had any form of draft Treaty from the Colonial Office in England. He had been briefed well
enough to know what the British Government's Colonial Office required - a cession of Sovereignty, absolute control over all land
matters and the authority to impose law, order equality and protection on both Maori and non-Maori. On his arrival in New Zealand
and with the assistance of J. S. Freeman his secretary, he drafted some preliminary notes as a basis of the Treaty. Hobson then became
ill and the notes were delivered to Busby, now the ex-Resident to complete. Busby, who had no understanding of the brief given to
Hobson by the Colonial Office, considered Hobson's notes inadequate and drafted a Treaty himself. It consisted of a Preamble and
three articles, longer than the notes given to him by Hobson.

Busby's draft, instead of giving equal rights to both Maori and non-Maori, as the Colonial Office had requested, only gave a guarantee
to the Maori people collectively and individually, of the full exclusive and undisturbed possession of their lands, estates, fisheries and
forests so long as they wished to retain them.

Hobson sent a letter, written in Maori, to a large number of chiefs on the 1st of February advising them of the Treaty which was to be
read and fully discussed on the 5th and then to be signed on the 7th of February, 1840 at Waitangi

Busby's draft was delivered to Hobson on the 3rd of February 1840.

On the night of the 3rd of February, Hobson asked for and was visited by a number of missionaries - Henry Williams, Charles Baker,
George Clarke, William Colenso and Richard Taylor all of the Church Missionary and James Butler from the Wesleyan Mission
Society. From these meetings, he held several sets of notes, including Busby's draft, from which the final treaty would be written.
Advice on the final wording of the treaty was sought from Henry Williams, head of the Church Mission Society and a missionary in
New Zealand since 1823… a man who had a great understanding of the Maoris and their language.

As instructed by the Colonial Office, Hobson changed the wording of Busby's draft to guarantee "to all the people of New Zealand",
not just the chiefs and their tribes, the possession of their lands dwellings and all their property, far less than we are led to believe

                                                                                                                                        10
today. Busby admitted that changes were made to his draft. The treaty had to be written in a very simple form for the chiefs to
understand. Unfortunately the simplicity has allowed it to be easily distorted.

At 4pm on the 4th of February, Hobson gave Henry Williams the final draft of the Treaty to be translated into Maori by 10am the
following morning. Unfortunately, this final draft was misplaced and therefore, not having the final draft, has allowed many people to
translate the Maori version to their advantage*.

*Note: The original, final draft of the Treaty of Waitangi, made under the direction of Lieut-Governor Hobson was found in
1989 in the documents of the Littlewood family of Manurewa, Auckland. It was deposited into the National Archives at
Wellington in July, 1992. Henry Littlewood (1812 -1864) was a solicitor in early New Zealand, living for extended periods in
both Auckland, when it was the Seat of Government, or Russell, near Waitangi. The original draft Treaty document is
displayed later in this website article, complete with its full text and pedigree.

Henry Williams and his son Edward translated the final draft from English into Maori, thus becoming the "Treaty" that was read,
discussed and signed at Waitangi. As Hobson and Williams had discussed this final draft the night before, Williams would have had a
full understanding of it and to the vital importance of an accurate translation that could be understood by the chiefs.

At 9am on the 5th of February, while the chiefs started arriving at Waitangi, Hobson, Williams and Busby met behind locked doors to
check and finalise the accuracy of the translation of the Treaty. They made sure it was a true and accurate as possible translation of the
final draft and relayed accurately the brief given to Hobson by the Colonial Office. At 10am both the final draft and the Maori
translations to the treaty were read out to the chiefs, their tribes and many of the settlers gathered at Waitangi. A discussion followed
lasting five hours. After this meeting the chiefs assembled at the Te Tii Marae and discussed the Treaty for the rest of the day and
most of the night. As Henry Williams recollects: "We gave them but one version, explaining clause by clause, showing the advantages
to them being taken under the fostering care of the British Government, by which act they would become one people with the British,
in the suppression of wars, and of every lawless act; under one Sovereignty and one law, human and divine".

The meeting was to resume on the 7th of February to give the chiefs time to fully discuss and understand the Treaty, but they could
not wait until the 7th as they had come to a decision that night that it should be concluded immediately as they saw it to their
advantage to do so. Hobson was summoned on the morning of the 6th and the signing commenced with the chiefs consenting that they
fully understood the words of the Treaty and that they would become one people with one law under British Sovereignty.




                                                                                                                                        11
The Maori version of the Treaty was signed at Waitangi on the 6th of February, 1840 by 43 chiefs, nine non-Maori and Hobson
representing the Queen, plus many hundreds of Maoris and non-Maoris as eye witnesses. As each chief signed the Treaty, Hobson
shook his hand and repeated, "He iwi tahi tatou - We are now one people", to which they all agreed and gave three hearty cheers.

The Preamble of the Treaty ceded all parts of New Zealand to the Queen. The mountains, rivers, lakes, airwaves, natural resources, the
lot. The articles then gave the Maoris the same rights to their taonga/property as the British subjects "inherited" when New Zealand
became British soil under one flag and one law.

To see the signatures of 240 Chiefs and many other interesting details related to the Treaty signing go to:
http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/gallery/treaty-sigs/wai-tangi.htm#images

Here is the "modern" Treaty, changed in 1975 to "write out" the non-Maori and make the first part of Article 2 relate only to Maori.
This was a radical departure away from the agreed, excepted meaning and wording of the previous 135-years, wherein the Maori text
had always been "back translated" to state: "and all the people of New Zealand".

                                                  THE TREATY OF WAITANGI

                                                    (Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975)

                                                       The Treaty of Waitangi
                                                        (The text in English)

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 from both Europe and Australia which is still in progress to constitute and appoint a
functionary properly authorised 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 necessary Laws and Institutions alike to the native
population and to Her subjects has been graciously pleased to empower and to authorise 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 cede to Her
Majesty to invite the confederated and independent Chiefs of New Zealand to concur in the following Articles and Conditions.



                                                                                                                                     12
                                                        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 of Individual Chiefs respectively exercise and possess, or may be supposed to exercise or
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 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.

                                                        ARTICLE THE THIRD

In consideration of 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.

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 to fully 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 signature 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.
(Here follow signatures, dates, etc).

See also: http://www.geocities.com/SouthBeach/Port/2470/maori/translated_treaty.html where article 2 of the modern Maori
version is translated as:

                                                                                                                                      13
The Queen of England agrees and consents to the Chiefs, hapu, and all the people of New Zealand the full chieftainship of
their lands, their villages and all their possessions, but the Chiefs give to the Queen the purchasing of those pieces of land
which the owner is willing to sell, subject to the arranging of payment which will be agreed to by them and the purchaser who
will be appointed by the Queen for the purpose of buying for her.

This modern "official" translation of the Maori text, related to a Treaty encompassing the rights of "all the people of New Zealand",
is further substantiated and corroborated by two (circa 1860's) translations of the Maori text back into English:


         A literal translation into English, Made in New Zealand, of the Maori Version of the Treaty, in the Year 1865


Victoria, Queen of England, in her gracious remembrance of the chiefs of the tribes of New Zealand and through her desires to
preserve them their chieftainship and their land and to preserve peace and quietness to them, has thought it right to send them a
gentleman to be their representative to the Queen's Government. Now, because there are numbers of people living in this land, and
more will be coming. The Queen wishes to appoint a Government that there may be no cause for strife between the natives and the
Pakeha, who are now without law. It has now pleased the Queen to appoint me William Hobson, a Captain in the Royal Navy,
Govenor of all parts of New Zealand, which shall be ceded now and at a further period to the Queen. She offers to the Chiefs of the
Assembly of the tribes of New Zealand and to the other chiefs the following laws:-

1. The Chiefs of (i.e. constituting) the Assembly, and all the Chiefs who are absent from the Assembly, shall cede to the Queen of
England for ever the Government of their lands.

2. The Queen of England acknowledges and guarantees to the chiefs, the tribes, and all the people of New Zealand, the entire
supremacy of their lands, of their settlements and all of their personal property. But the Chiefs of the Assembly, and all other chiefs,
make over to the Queen the purchasing of such lands, which the man who possesses the land is willing to sell, according to prices
agreed upon by him, and the purchaser appointed by the Queen to purchase for her.

3. In return for their acknowledging the Government of the Queen, the Queen of England will protect all the natives of New Zealand,
and will allow them the same right as the people of England.

Signed, William Hobson
Consul, and Lieutenant-Governor.

                                                                                                                                           14
We the chiefs of this Assembly of the tribes of New Zealand, now assembled at Waitangi perceiving the meaning of these words, take
and consent to them all. Therefore we sign our name and our marks.

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

Text from J Noble Coleman, A Memoir of the Rev. Richard Davis, London 1865 pp. 455-56


                                                  THE TREATY OF WAITANGI

                                             (Treaty of Waitangi Amendment Act 1985)

                                                       The Treaty of Waitangi
                                                        (The Text in Maori)

KO WIKITORIA, te Kuini o Ingarani, I tana mahara atawai ki nga Rangitira me nga Hapu o Nu Tirani I tana hiahia hoki kia tohungia
ki a ratou o ratou rangitiatanga me to ratou wenua, a kia man tonu hoki te Rongo ki a ratou me te Atanoho hoki kua wakaaro ia he mea
tika kia tukua mai tetahi Rangitira hei kai wakarite ki nga Tangata maori o Nu Tirani-kia wakaaetia e nga Rangitira maori te
Kawanatanga o te Kuini ki nga wahikatoa o te wenua nei me nga Motuna te mea hoki he tokomaha ke nga tangata o tona Iwi Kua
noho ki tenei wenua, a 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, amua ki te Kuini e mea atu ana ia ki nga Rangitira o te wakaminenga o nga hapu o Nu Tirani me era Rangitira atu enei
ture ka koreotia nei.

                                                            Ko te Tuatahi

Ko nga Rangitira o te Wakaminenga me nga Rangitira katoa hoki ki hai I urn ki taua wakaminenga ka tuku rawa atu ki te Kuini o
Ingarani aka tonu atu-te Kawanatanga katoa o o ratou wenua.

                                                             Ko te Tuarua


                                                                                                                                  15
Ko te Kuini o Ingarani ka wakarite ka wakaae ki nga Rangitira ki hapu-ki tangata katoa o Nu Tirani te tino rangitiratanga o o ratou
wenua o ratou kainga me o ratou taonga katoa. Otiia ko nga Rangitira o te Wakaminenga me nga Rangitira katoa atu ka tuku ki te
Kuini te hokanga o era wahi wenua e pai te tangata nona te Wenua-ki te ritenga o te utu e wakaritea ai e ratou ko te kai hook e meatia
nei e te Kuini hei kai hook mona.

                                                             Ko te Tuaoru

Hei wakaritenga mai hoki tenei mo te wakaetanga 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 and Lieutenant-Governor

Na ko matou ko nga Rangitira o te Wakaminenga o nga hapu o Nu Tirani ka huihui nei ki Waitangi ko matou hoki ko nga Rangitira 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 Pepueri I te tau kotahi mano, e waru ran e wa te kau o to tatou Ariki.

Ko nga Rangitira o te wakaminenga.


                                     Translated From the Original Maori by, Mr. T. E. Young,
                                                       Native Department

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



                                                                                                                                          16
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.

                                                        PROCLAMATION

                                           In the name of Her Majesty VICTORIA, Queen
                                             Of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
                                                Ireland, By William Hobson, Esquire, a

                                                                                                                                    17
                     Captain in the Royal Navy, Lieutenant-
                           Governor of New Zealand.

                       Whereas I have it in Command from
                 Her Majesty Queen VICTORIA, through Her
                 Principal Secretary of State of the Colonies, to
               assert, on the grounds of Discovery, the Sovereign
                Rights of Her Majesty over the Southern Islands
               Of New-Zealand, commonly called, "The Middle
                 Island", and "Stewart's Island"; and, the Island,
                    commonly called, "The Northern Island",
               having been ceded in Sovereignty to Her Majesty.

                       Now, therefore, I William Hobson,
                Lieutenant-Governor of New Zealand, do hereby
                 Proclaim and Declare to all men, that from and
              After the Date of these Presents, the full Sovereignty
                 Of the Islands of New Zealand, extending from
               Thirty-four Degrees Thirty Minutes to Forty-seven
               Degrees Ten Minutes South Latitude, and between
               One Hundred and Sixty-six Degrees Five Minutes
                 to One Hundred and Seventy-nine Degrees of
                  East Longitude, vests in Her Majesty Queen
                VICTORIA, Her Heirs and Successors for ever.

  Given under my Hand at Government-House, RUSSELL, Bay of Islands, this
Twenty-first day of May, in the Year of Our Lord One Thousand Eight Hundred and
                                       Forty.

                                    (Signed,)

                  WILLIAM HOBSON, Lieutenant-Governor.



                                                                                  18
                                                    By His Excellency's Command,

                                         (Signed,) Willoughby Shortland, Colonial Secretary.

                                                      GOD SAVE THE QUEEN.

                                    PAIHIA: Printed at the Press of the Church Missionary Society.


AFTER THE TREATY

For the first ten years after the Treaty was signed, the Maoris prospered and there were very few disputes between the tribes or settlers
but as more settlers arrived, the demand for more land and the new way of life for the Maoris required more money to support it,
unrest developed. Disputes between the tribes as to ownership of land being sold to sustain this new way of life and the pressure from
the settlers more land caused major problems for the Governor and people alike. Many Maoris whose ancestors sold their land, regret
it now and blame the non-Maori for their ancestor's actions.

In 1850 war broke out between some of the tribes of the North and the British Imperial Troops were very reluctantly brought in by the
Government to quell these and other disturbances and to enforce British Sovereignty agreed when the chiefs signed the Treaty. A total
of 950 Maori were killed by the troops while trying to quell the inter-tribal wars.

After the Treaty, large areas of land transferred from Maori ownership to European ownership at this time although land purchases by
devious means, was in most cases returned to the Maori owners by the Governor and then in some cases re-purchased. Many settlers
who had purchased land from the Maoris legitimately before the Treaty, but could not prove their purchase, lost their complete
purchase when investigated by the Governor. Even some of the Governors tried to do devious deals, like the second attempted
purchase of the South Island in Australia, which failed. Most of the South Island had already been purchased before the Treaty was
signed but after it was signed the Governor rejected the sale.

The Maoris were also upset that land being purchased from them by the Governor was then sold to the settlers at a profit. What many
did not understand was that this profit was being used to develop New Zealand. Many settlers, especially the New Zealand Company,
were very upset that they had to pay more for the land than if they had bought it direct from the Maoris. This is why some devious
settlers tried to talk the Maoris out of signing the Treaty and to stir up unrest amongst them after it was signed.


                                                                                                                                       19
Now that the Treaty was signed, land had to be divided into legal ownership to be given titles. Whoever claimed the most land before
titles were given would then own it legally after titles were given. This, plus land not owned by the seller, started the land wars of
1860 in Taranaki. A dispute arose between the Maoris who sold the land and the "rightful owners". This land was returned to the
"rightful owners" then re-purchased at a higher price. It was again disputed and the Imperial Troops were brought in to gain peace and
to enforce British Sovereignty/law/order over this small minority of Maori "rebels".

At the time the "King Movement" was gaining strength. The King Movement was a rebellious group of Waikato Maoris who had
signed the Treaty but were opposing British sovereignty by helping the Taranaki Maoris in their war as well as causing unrest and
trouble in the development of New Zealand.

Even though they had signed the Treaty they decided to keep their Sovereignty, which through weak Governments, is still in existence
today. They are using the Waitangi Tribunal to lodge claims against the Crown/people which have in many cases, like many others,
including the Nga Tahu, have had full and final settlements already honoured by the people of New Zealand since 1946 and earlier.

The majority of the tribes and their people accepted British Sovereignty and Government and prospered. It was only a small group,
mainly in the centre of the North Island and led by individuals, who caused the trouble. Many Maoris fought alongside the Imperial
troops to bring law and order to New Zealand. Only a small percentage of the tribes were involved in the land/Sovereignty wars.
Most welcomed and encouraged the Europeans to settle in their area for the protection, trade and prosperity they brought.

LAND CONFISCATIONS

For nearly twenty years the Imperial troops fought the "rebel" Maoris at Taranaki, Waikato and Tauranga (Gate Pa). At times the
Imperial Troops consisted of more than 14000 men under the command of the Governor. At this time large areas of land in Taranaki,
Waikato and Tauranga were confiscated as payment for these wars, although most of the Tauranga land was returned with a large cash
payment of two thousand five hundred pounds for the Maoris to re-establish themselves. Many innocent settlers lost their land and/or
their lives by the "rebels" during these wars.

Although these wars of the 60's were called "Land Wars" they were really "Sovereignty Wars". The wars were fought to enforce
British Sovereignty over New Zealand so that Britain could form a united Government to bring law, order and protection to all the
people of New Zealand, as the Treaty promised. The confiscations were a result of these wars and not a means by which to gain land.
The war cost 400,000 pounds in 1861, far more than if the land had been bought in peaceful times.




                                                                                                                                    20
In most cases the Maoris accepted these confiscations at the time. They fought and unfortunately lost and therefore had to pay the
price. This in itself, is Maori Custom. The Imperial Troops at no time fought to destroy the Maori; they fought only to bring law and
order to a small minority of rebels. The majority of Maori were very good law abiding citizens. It was only a few, as it is today, who
were making it difficult for the majority.

As the Kingites in the north, a group of rebels in the south, the Hauhaus had formed their own religious war party determined to drive
the Europeans back into the sea by working themselves and their followers into a frenzy before attacking and killing remote settlers,
their families and stock around Wellington province and Hawkes Bay.

On the 23rd of April 1851, Auckland with a population of 4500 was threatened by an attack by a group of Maori from the Ngaiti paoa
tribe south of Auckland who had some of their people imprisoned. They assembled five war canoes, plus several smaller canoes and
set off from Waiheke to attack the people of Auckland as Heke had done six years earlier at Russell. Governor Grey quickly
assembled the 58th Regiment and greeted the Maoris when they landed at Mechanics Bay. He also had the HMS Fly sail in behind the
canoes, Grey then approached the Chief and told him that if he did not go back to his village, the war ship would make short work of
his canoes and the troops would open fire. The Maoris had no alternative but to heed Grey's ultimatum and paddle away. Later they
apologised to Grey and, as a token of respect, laid five greenstone mere's at his feet.

TRIBAL LORE TO BRITISH LAW

These incidents marked the turning point from tribal control/ lore in New Zealand to full British control/law that the Maoris had asked
for on many occasions and agreed to in the Treaty of Waitangi. The British had not wanted to get involved in tribal warfare and had
hoped it would sort itself out but with a rebel threat to Auckland, defiance to law, order and the British Sovereignty by the King
Movement, the killing of settlers by the Hauhaus, and inter-tribal fighting, there was no alternative. A stand for British Sovereignty,
law and order had to be made by the Governor with his Imperial Troops.

It must be remembered that the Maoris had been at war between themselves for hundreds of years for survival as well as to show their
mana and strength. It was their way of life. To expect them to stop this tribal warfare overnight, especially now they had muskets that
could settle old scores, would be an impossibility and would take time. Only a strong Governor with a force would break this pattern
and bring law, order and unity between the people of New Zealand. Most tribes were peaceful and law abiding and became very good
citizens as soon as the Treaty was signed. Only a few did not honour the Treaty of Waitangi and resisted British Sovereignty. It was
very unfair to the tribes that did honour the Treaty and helped develop New Zealand, now to be forced by Government to pay
compensation to those who did not. As the land was now governed under one law, the Imperial Government had to bring in the
Imperial Troops to enforce law and order and to stop the fighting between the tribes. It was also thought that if the Troops were not

                                                                                                                                         21
brought in to stop the tribal fighting the Maoris would soon destroy themselves. Many Maori joined the Imperial Troops and fought
alongside them in the land/Sovereignty wars as they did not agree with the "rebels" actions. There were eighty times more Maori
killed in the tribal wars than in the land/Sovereignty wars of the 60's and 70's. Chiefs like Hongi killed his own countrymen just for the
sake of blood or to settle old scores, now that he had muskets. The Imperial Troops were used only to gain peace and to enforce
British Sovereignty, not grab land as many historians and activists lead us to believe.

The wars were very costly and were not the direct fault of the Imperial or Colonial Government. The Governor had to confiscate land
conquered from the tribes who started the wars to meet the costs and to show that there was now one law for all. Many innocent
settlers and their families also lost land as well as their lives during these wars but their ancestors have never received
compensation or a Government funded Tribunal to hear their grievances as have Maoris.

As Sir Apirana Ngata stated in his book, The treaty of Waitangi- An Explanation, "Some have said that these confiscations
were wrong and that they contravene the articles of the Treaty of Waitangi, but the chiefs placed in the hands of the Queen of
England, the Sovereignty and authority to make laws. Some sections of the Maori people violated that authority, war arose
and blood was spilled. The law came into operation and the land was taken as payment. This in itself is Maori custom-revenge-
plunder to avenge a wrong. It was their chiefs who ceded that right to the Queen. The confiscations can not therefore be
objected to in the light of the Treaty.

Many of these confiscations, whether right or wrong have had full and final settlements reached with previous Governments and then
honoured by the people of New Zealand for many, many years but are again before the Waitangi Tribunal to be re-negotiated. If
anyone is to be responsible it should be the Imperial Government and not the Colonial Government as they had very little control over
what happened in New Zealand at the time… a responsibility of Britain and not the people of New Zealand.

The Imperial Troops were always under the control of the Governor of the Imperial Government until 1870 when the troops were
finally withdrawn. The Colonial Government had no control over the Imperial Troops who fought, conquered and confiscated the land
which was then sold to the settlers by the Government. The Imperial Troops were used by Britain to enforce British Sovereignty over
New Zealand, otherwise the British would have been defeated by, (quote) "a pack of uncivilised savages". In most conflicts with the
Imperial Troops the Maoris were outnumbered 4 to 1 but with their modern fortified pas and their very clever and cunning methods of
outsmarting the British they always seemed to escape with little loss of life. Until settlers assisted, the troops did not chase Maoris
who retired to the King Country. The wars ended without a true victory to either side and, eventually, peace was achieved by this
small group of Maori "rebels" accepting the advantages of British rule and Sovereignty. This was far better than being constantly at
odds with the rest of the country, including their fellow countrymen.



                                                                                                                                       22
After the withdrawal of the Imperial Troops in 1870, the Colonial Government formed a constabulary of many nationalities as well as
many pro-Government Maori. These were used to keep law and order and to control the small "rebel" followers still causing trouble.
In most cased the constabulary were commanded by ex-Imperial commanders, who had decided to stay in New Zealand. In 1872 the
Maoris still owned about 75% of the North Island. Most of the land after this time was sold for a fair price by ancestors of present day
Maori, who spent the money, leaving very little or nothing for their descendants. Over-all very little land was confiscated as most was
returned or compensation paid.

LIMITED SELF GOVERNMENT

From 1840 until 1852 New Zealand was controlled by the British Crown under a Governor. On the 30th June 1852 New Zealand's
Crown Colony status ended with the passing of the British Parliament's Constitution Act granting limited self Government. This Act
provided for a National General Assembly of an Elected House of Representatives, an appointed Legislative Council and the
Governor who was to hold supreme authority.

The General Assembly met for the first time in Auckland on the 24th May 1854 and soon found that the real power still lay with the
Crown Officials on the Executive Council, answerable only to the Governor.

Henry Sewell became the first Prime Minister on the 7th May 1856.

The official designation "Colonial" disappeared on the 25th November 1907 to be replaced by "Dominion of New Zealand". Governor
became Governor General in 1917. Full and final autonomy and Sovereignty occurred on November 25th 1947 when New Zealand
adopted the Statute of Westminster. Britain then enacted, at New Zealand's request, a Constitution Act authorising New Zealand to
alter any of the 1852 Constitution Act provisions. Up until this time, the Colonial Governments were only "puppets on a string" to
Britain. As Sovereignty over New Zealand was held by the British Crown until 1947, the Dominion Government could not make laws
or pass Acts without their authority. Even today the Government can be overruled by the British Privy Council or expelled by the
Governor General, the Queen's representative (Martin's note: The Privy Council has now been dumped, much against the wishes of
most New Zealnders. Our new Supreme Court will be "The Waitangi Tribunal" in drag).

THE CROWN

Today Governments conveniently hide behind "The Crown", when in need, not really knowing or admitting who or what it is. As it is
no longer the British Crown, it can only be the people of New Zealand, the Government in perpetuity or the Queen. The question to be



                                                                                                                                      23
asked is, "should the Government in power at the time, sell or trade the Crowns/peoples assets or give large sums of money or
buy assets for one group of citizens, in out of court settlements as it is doing, without first going to the people?"

The Waitangi Tribunal, funded by the Government, is controlled by the 1975 Treaty of Waitangi Act using the five Principals, which
in many cases do not relate to the Treaty's true intentions or spirit that, "we are one people". The Tribunal hears only claims by
people of Maori descent and is funded by the taxpayer with grants to the claimants to research and lodge their claims, also funded by
the taxpayer. Non-Maori are not allowed to lodge claims, or in many cases, participate in the hearings which are usually heard on
the marae. This Tribunal contravenes section 19 (1&2) of the Bill of Rights Act, as well as article three of the Treaty and
therefore must be abolished. How can we be expected to honour one part of the Treaty if another part is being broken with the
Government's blessing? (funding).

The question that must be asked is, how do we address these so-called wrongs, when the claimants' ancestors, through intermarriage
helped create them?

After twenty years of negotiating and thinking that these grievances are being solved satisfactorily once and for all, Sir Graham
Latimer now states in the Straight Furrow Magazine, dated the 21st March 1994, that "A lot of people feel this type of settlement is
not possible, but it is possible to have a generation settlement. No-one can commit the children 25 years on". What he is saying is
that every 25 years these settlements must be renegotiated.

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…….

SO WHAT HAVE WE LEARNT SO FAR?

· The Treaty of Waitangi is an inspired and benign, friendly document that all New Zealanders should cherish and no New Zealander
should fear.

· The Treaty guarantees equality for all New Zealanders, that all will be treated with justice and accorded full rights and privileges of
British subjects.

· That the Sovereignty of New Zealand is vested in Her Majesty the Queen.




                                                                                                                                        24
· That the Chiefs and signatories to the Treaty fully understood the rights that they were forfeiting and transferring to British
Sovereignty and did so willingly in order to become recipients of the protections accorded by the Queen's Government.

· That the simplicity of the wording within the preamble and articles of the Treaty leaves no room for misunderstanding or alternative
meanings of the clauses. Reverse translations of the Maori text back into English in the 1860's shows that the Chiefs were fully
conversant with the meanings of each article and that there was no ambiguity.

· The Chiefs, realising that the only hope for the survival of the Maori people lay in this course of action, wisely chose to make this
gift available to their people. After 80,000 Maori had lost their lives through inter-tribal conflict in the short space of only twenty
years it was time to make radical life-saving changes.

AND WHAT WENT SO HORRIBLY WRONG?

· Conniving and devious people, intent upon defrauding the people of New Zealand, decided to "re-interpret" what the Treaty could be
construed to mean.

· They managed to isolate the preamble, such that it doesn't feature in any discussion related to the meaning or spirit of the Treaty and
have subsequently and insidiously eliminated it from the document as a clause of no significance or relevance.

· They managed to get rid of articles 1 & 3, such that these do not feature to any extent in the nouveau, exploitative and twisted
interpretations related to the "true intent" and purpose of the Treaty. For those advocating "Maori Sovereignty", the Treaty represents a
significant blockade to their incentive...unless they can eliminate most of it's clauses and add in radically revised ones, then convince
New Zealanders that the Treaty didn't mean what it clearly stated in 1840.

· They home in on part of article 2 and claim that it means anything and everything that is guaranteed to "turn a buck". The first half of
Article 2 is the only area that gets any (albeit nefarious) mention.

· Without any consultation or input from the people of New Zealand, our Treaty was hijacked, tampered with, bastardised, added to
without authority, turned into a so-called, "living document" that can be reinterpreted to exploit any newly arising financial
opportunity, and shamefully used to plunder and dispossess all the people of New Zealand. What was given to us as a benevolent gift
by the Chiefs has been turned into an instrument of torture, hardship, apartheid and slavery, detested by the vast majority of New
Zealanders. The goodwill inherent in the Treaty in now in disrepute.


                                                                                                                                          25
The foundation upon which the Treaty of Waitangi rests is "Magna Carta". The "common law" rights of The Great Charter are
guaranteed by the reigning Monarch of Britain. This is the body of "law" and "human rights" that were offered, through William
Hobson, by Queen Victoria, to the Chiefs of the Independent State of New Zealand in 1840. The only way that the Treaty of Waitangi
can be nullified or declared "broken" is if the New Zealand Government deviates markedly away from the principles of Magna Carta,
which principles underlie the Treaty of Waitangi. Continued access to full Magna Carta rights, as preeminent and supreme over all
other forms of subservient statutory laws, rules, codes, regulations, policies, etc., is guaranteed by, The New Zealand Imperial
Applications Act 1988.

CUSTOMARY RIGHTS

Researcher Hilda Phillips has spent the last thirty years unravelling the cobweb of deceit woven by fraudsters/ opportunists… who
have gone unchecked because of bungling, inept and inattentive bureaucrats/ politicians... resulting in the present legal "mess" and
confusion surrounding Treaty claims. Hilda provides us with the following insights related to some of what went so horribly wrong:

From the time that Maori arrived in this country until 1840, they occupied and used land and territorial fisheries ONLY for so long as
they could defend it against other warring tribes. Whatever governorship, kawanatanga or rangatiratanga chiefs may have then
possessed could not protect, ensure, or guarantee (even their own) uninterrupted occupation of Maori "dwellings and places of
cultivation".

Until 1840 "customary law", or, more appropriately, customary lore prevailed. This has been variously described as Maori
"traditional rights", their "customs and usages", or - as now stated in the Ture Whenua Maori Land Act 1993 - "tikanga Maori
customary values and practices".

A primary customary right was "kite": the right of discovery. But "ahi-mataotao" applied when the descendants of a territorial
ancestor (for whatever reason) left the area and none of the progeny returned to keep the rights alive for a period of three generations.
In other words, they had not practiced "ahi-ka": that is, they had not kept "the fire burning" by periodic occupation and use.

There were other "customary" rights, but "take raupatu" - the right of conquest - prevailed over ALL other pre-European "tikanga
Maori customary values and practices". In pre-European times, Maori most certainly did not have any "spiritual" attachment to land,
lakes, sea or foreshore.

Prior to 1840, there was no form of civil government external and common to all tribes, which could ensure "guardianship" of any
territory (land, mountain, sea, foreshore, lake or river). The present Labour Government completely ignores a fact, which (rightly)

                                                                                                                                        26
should be common knowledge to every New Zealand schoolchild that - from the time they arrived in this country until 1840 - Maori
occupied and used land and territorial fisheries only for as long as they could defend it against other warring tribes. Whatever form of
customary title prevailed prior to 1840 was vested in the fighting strength of the tribes warriors. Until 1840 they "colonised"
each other's tribal territory, and the vanquished were often enslaved or devoured.

The signing of the Treaty of Waitangi put an effective end to the Maori acquisition and loss of land by warfare and, for the first time
introduced a system of law which enabled Maori - for the first time in history - to own land "undisturbed and for so long as it is
their wish and desire to retain the same in their possession", as guaranteed in the first part of Article II of the Treaty.

MAORI LAND OWNERSHIP

It should be common knowledge but, sadly is not, that where the Maori "places of residence and cultivation" were clearly
recognised (particularly amongst themselves) their customary right of occupation and/or use - as it stood in 1840 - was confirmed with
a registered propriety title "derived from the Crown". Although this "extinguished" their pre-European "tikanga Maori traditional
values and practices", the newly-introduced system of land law brought about a transformation from land-occupation to land-
OWNERSHIP. The newly acquired legal land titles were recorded in Land Registry Offices (I have personally sighted some of them,
but it is only in the earliest records that the race and registered owner is recorded).

However (to my knowledge) from 1840 to 1865 such Maori-OWNED land had no statutory designation. The Native Lands Act 1865
introduced the term "Hereditaments" to denote "lands in the Colony which are owned by Maori". This was eventually changed to
the term (just) "Land" in the Native Land Court Act 1894; and subsequently was changed again to "European Land" by the Native
Land Act 1909. In today's race - conscious world it is difficult to believe that any government could be so foolhardy as to introduce
the term "European Land" to denote Maori-owned land, but that is an irrefutable fact (which anyone who takes the trouble to read the
Act can confirm).

It was not until 1975, that a Maori Affairs Amendment Act introduced the more appropriate term "General Land" to denote Maori-
owned land subject to New Zealand's general land law. And it was not until 1980 that such Maori-owned land was officially
recognised by the McCarthy Royal Commission's acknowledgement that there was "a very considerable amount" of such Maori-
owned land which "is to be found in farms, in business sites and in town and country house sections".

As Maori-owned land has been so systematically ignored (especially by Parliament) it bears stressing that Maori are by no means as
"landless" as the nation has been brainwashed into believing. The time is already long-overdue for Parliament to recognise and
acknowledge that it is only since 1840 that Maori have been able to OWN land "undisturbed and for so long as it is their wish and

                                                                                                                                          27
desire to retain the same in their possession"; and, what is more, own it collectively as well as individually anywhere in New
Zealand. The transformation from "customary" land-occupation to legal land ownership is indisputable (but regrettably, ignored)
proof that the Queen's guarantee in the first part of Article II of the Treaty of Waitangi has been honoured.

But there are two parts to Article II in the Maori as well as the English text of the Treaty - the Queen's guarantee and the Chief's
"partnership agreement". This was violated, and however understandable that may be viewed in a historical context, it is
nevertheless a fact, which has yet to be recognised and acknowledged - as it created a fertile legal ground for race-related claims.

RACE-RELATED LAND, AND ALL OTHER, CLAIMS ARE ILL-FOUNDED

All race-related land, and other, claims MUST be - and have yet to be - considered in the context of THE CHIEF'S "partnership
agreement".

In the long-ignored second part of the Article II, especially in the Maori text, the Chiefs agreed that the Queen (or Her
representatives) could purchase those pieces of land, which "the owner" was willing to sell". Yet all race-related land, and other,
claims have yet to be considered in the context of THE CHIEF'S "partnership agreement" - because they sold land they did not
own.

In 1840, most of the South Island was uninhabited, and even in the more populated North Island there were large tracts of unoccupied
land between the territories of different tribes. These areas, officially referred to as "waste land" or "surplus land" were, in effect,
tracts of "no man's land". Nevertheless, "nearly the whole of the South Island" as well as large tracts - which were not occupied
or cultivated by any tribe, hapu, or iwi - were purchased, often repeatedly purchased, by the government:
As no purchase from one of the contending parties was held binding by the others, the Government eventually established a special
Law Court in 1865 to deal with Maori-disputed claims both prior to and subsequent to the land sale. Maori disputed not only the
right of other Maori to sell the tracts of "no man's land" they also laid claim to Government-purchased and European-owned land. The
Land Court was intended to be a purely temporary measure "to remedy the invidious position of the Crown as arbitrator in land
disputes".

But instead of fulfilling its function, the Land Court created problems Far more serious than those it was established to
resolve. On June 7, 1886, The NZ Herald reported that Maori "were disgusted by the ease with which bogus claims were admitted
in (that) Court". And on April 7 1888 the Herald reported that Maori had "numerously signed petitions praying for the Land
Court to be abolished".



                                                                                                                                       28
Five years later the Rees Commission confirmed that the Court had issued BOGUS titles to Maori after the land sale and - on that ill
founded basis - "brought into existence a regular system of concocting false claims….in numerous instances perpetrating
frauds successfully both upon Maori and European" (Appendix to the Journal of the House of Representatives1891 G1 pages xi,
xii, and xviii).

In 1928 the Simm Commission found that the "confiscations" after the wars in the 1860's were of what legislation then called "Native
Land", a term which applied to the "surplus lands of the Maori in the North Island….the ownership of which was
unascertained". Nevertheless, the land was either purchased (in some instances yet again) or "returned" to Maori and - although the
land may never nave been tribally occupied - the Land Court "determined the persons to whom the land should be granted" :
AJHR 1928 1o, 18, 29 and 30.

In November 1973, Matiu Rata said in his introduction to a White Paper on Maori Affairs that the Government was "conscious" of the
Maoris "many land grievances, some going back over many years, others are of more recent vintage, but most are no more than 6 or 7
years old", and (on page 9) he referred to the "artificial status" of the Maori Land Court, the jurisdiction of which "included
questions of compensation".

In 1975, the Waitangi Tribunal was established and - by Parliamentary decree - the Chief Land Court judge became chairman of the
Tribunal, thereby compounding the practice of "concocting false claims".

In June 1987, both the Tribunal and the then-called Department of Maori Affairs acknowledged, at least to the New Zealand Herald,
that there is NO "comprehensive record" of WHICH TRIBES were represented by the Chiefs who signed the Treaty of
Waitangi or WHICH AREAS of New Zealand territory were occupied by them in 1840 (information which the NZ Herald has
yet to publish). Furthermore, as the Waitangi Tribunal has acknowledged (somewhat obliquely, but acknowledged nevertheless)
"Some Maori sold land they did not own" and the Land Court was established "to deal with the problem of suspect sellers"; but
"difficulties have arisen from the failure of the Court to determine who should take title or to even record the basis for reasons
for any selection or settlement": the Tribunal's Orakei Report pages 28, 29, and 34.

That such a situation exists is a blistering indictment of Parliament. The so-called "Maori Affairs" legislation is now embodied in the
Ture Whenua Maori Land Act 1993. Section 131 (1) of this Act empowers the Land Court "to determine and declare the (racial)
status of any parcel of land, whether or NOT that matter involves a question of law". This Act is administered by the Land
Court, the Chief Judge of which is also the chairman of the Waitangi Tribunal.




                                                                                                                                      29
Whoever the Minister of Treaty Negotiations has been, or is (at present Margaret Wilson) that person is negotiating multi-million
dollar race-related "settlements" on thoroughly ill-founded ethnic, tribal, hapu, iwi criteria. Obtaining money under false pretences,
under any other circumstances, would be a criminal offence; but apparently ceases to be when legalised by Parliament.

A situation which will be even more gravely exacerbated by the present government's proposal, which is to establish "a new and
dedicated jurisdiction of the Maori Land Court to investigate Maori Customary rights in the foreshore and seabed". A
proposal, it bears stressing, which would legally perpetuate the mistakenly Maori-named Land Court, which "brought into existence a
regular system of concocting false claims" - at a crippling cost to the nation.

THE MISTAKEN SYSTEM

On page 9 of its publication Protecting Public Access and Customary Rights, the Government asks: "How did the legal case on
the foreshore and seabed come about?"

The answer to that question has its genesis in the Native Land Act 1865 which established the Land Court. The term "Native Land"
was coined by the government in 1860 to mean "the customs and usages of the aboriginal inhabitants of New Zealand so far as
the same are not repugnant to the general principles of humanity" (AJHR 1860 3E 6B page 4). The term applied to whatever
"customary law (or more appropriately customary LORE) could be applied by the Court to Maori-DISPUTED claims both prior to
and subsequent to land sales. But when the term "Native Land" was transposed into law, the Native Lands Act 1865 wrongly stated
that the term "shall mean lands in the Colony owned by Natives". The term "Native Land", it bears stressing, denoted the legal
status of land dealt with by the Court, and NOT the racial ownership. This error fathered what the Rees Commission found was a
"mistaken system".

The Rees Commission recognised and acknowledged that, " for a quarter of a century the Native land-law and the Native
Land Courts had drifted from bad to worse…from 1865 there were almost annual amendments to the legislation, sometimes
even several amendments in the same year. In 1888 there were eight Acts passed, and in 1889 nine… (this) was and is the
result of a mistaken system which Parliament determined to enforce…secrecy which was ever the badge of fraud was
observed…and (as a result) it has exercised a baneful influence on all those who had anything to do with it. Other mistakes in
legislation have produced disasters, but it is difficult to find a parallel to the evil consequences which have resulted in New
Zealand as a fruit of a mistaken system.

"The pernicious consequences of Native land-legislation have not been confined to the Natives, nor to the European (to whom
the law ALSO applied) ….the disputes thence arising have compelled the attention of the public at large, they have filled the

                                                                                                                                         30
Courts of the Colony with litigation, they have flooded Parliament with petitions, given rise to debate and very great
bitterness… and while entailing very heavy annual expenses upon the Colony have invariably produced an uneasy public
feeling.

The Court's decisions are never final…so complete has the confusion both in law and practice become that lawyers of high
standing today and extensive practice have testified on oath that if the legislature had desired to create a state of confusion and
anarchy in Native-land titles it could not have hoped to have been more successful than it has been. It is impossible within
reasonable limits, to follow the windings and intricacies of those laws by which the legislature from the outset has been vainly
attempting to continue an unsatisfactory system. The pages of Hansard are filled with discussions upon Native-lands. In
numerous instances frauds have been perpetrated on successfully both upon Native and Europeans.

Evidence has been given by lawyers of repute that, owing to the many conflicting provisions of statutes and decisions by the
Court of Appeal it is doubtful whether a single title resting upon these statutes and its many amendments can be upheld, so
unstable is the foundation upon which they rest, so mistaken the principle which legislation has compelled the people to submit
to, that the most sacred rights of property are jeopardised. It is no consolation to find that the same laws which thus injure the
innocent and unfortunate in too many instances protect the wrongdoer".
THESE COMMENTS ARE RECORDED IN THE APPENDIX OF THE JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES 1861 G1 pages x-xiii.

But instead of taking appropriate action, Parliament perpetuated the "mistaken system" increasingly compounding it.

The Native Land Court Act 1894 separated the terms "Native Land" and "customary land" giving them contradictory interpretations.
This statutory confusion was further compounded when the Native Land Act 1909 introduced the term "Native freehold land - a term
which applied to bogus title certificates issued by the Land Court'.

The term "Native" was comprehensively changed to "Maori" by Part 1 section 2(4) of the Maori Purposes Act 1947. This exacerbated,
rather than resolved, the statutory confusion when numerous Native Land Acts became embodied in the Maori Affairs Act 1953.

In its 1980 report to Parliament, the McCarthy Royal Commission stated in no uncertain terms that those subject to the jurisdiction of
the Maori Courts "include of course, Europeans, the Government and others". The Commission went on to say that the
Department of Maori Affairs had been associated with the Land Court since 1865, adding that "The Court was the Department".
The Commission indisputably recognised that this judicial/bureaucratic establishment was MISTAKENLY Maori-named but did not
acknowledge this irrefutable fact. The Commission also recognised, but did not acknowledge that - sanctioned by Parliament - this

                                                                                                                                    31
mistakenly Maori-named judicial/bureaucratic establishment had spawned numerous government funded satellite bodies, including the
New Zealand Maori Council and the Waitangi Tribunal. Consequently, the Government gave the Maori Council authority to rewrite
the so-called Maori Affairs legislation which is now entitled the Ture Whenua Maori Land Act 1993.

In March this year, Attorney-General Margaret Wilson acknowledged that Maori Land Court judges are appointed by the Minister of
Maori Affairs. But she did not acknowledge that, whoever the Minister of Maori Affairs is (regardless of racial ancestry) that person
in accountable for the Land Court which Maori wanted abolished over 100 years ago. And even more noteworthy, the Attorney-
General (wittingly or unwittingly) did not acknowledge that since 1865, the Land Court has been mistakenly Native/Maori-named.
This is an irrefutable fact, which Parliament has attempted to bury in a veritable jungle of legislation administered by judges who
preside over a Law Court, alias the Department of Maori Affairs, alias Te Pune Kokiri/the Ministry of Maori Development. Viewed
in a historical context, nothing - absolutely nothing - can justify or condone the continued existence of the so-called "Maori Affairs"
portfolio.

As matters now stand, the Court of Appeals has referred a case involving a question of law back to the Court which fathered the land
and ALL other race-related claims on thoroughly ill-founded ethnic, tribal, hapu, iwi criteria. Wittingly or unwittingly the Court of
Appeals is condoning the existence of a racially mis-named Law Court which, for over a century, has outlawed law and justice to the
advantage of every citizen of this country, regardless of their racial ancestry.

Justice will continue to be outlawed by the Government's proposal to establish "a new and dedicated jurisdiction of the MIS-
named Maori/Land Court to investigate Maori customary interests in the foreshore and seabed".

THE WAY WE WERE AND BLEAK PROSPECTS FOR THE POLITICAL FUTURE...(Martin)

In 1840 it all started out on a well-intentioned, firm footing and the future was looking rosy for everyone in this country. All it would
take was some damned hard physical work, adherence to law, order and justice, as well as mutual respect and fair dealings between all
of our people.

There were bound to be unresolvable issues, eternally dissident parties and some who would never comply to the overall consensus of
opinion, shared by the cooperating majority who lived in New Zealand. At some point, as the years rolled on, New Zealand settled
down and came of age. Within about half a century of the Treaty being signed New Zealand was a well developed, abundant and safe
place to live for everyone. Just look at photos of scenes near the turn of the 19th to 20th century to see how far the fledgling little
nation had come in 50-years. New Zealand continued to develop and rapidly improve through the 20th century and beyond. I fondly



                                                                                                                                       32
remember it as a great place to grow up, with its moderate climate and seemingly endless coastline, mountains, forests, lakes and
rivers....the biggest park in the world to play in.

But alas, there are always some opportunists in every society who are so crooked, they can't lie straight in bed…and these mongrels
have destroyed our Treaty by tampering with it, rewriting it or deleting its clauses without our permission. They've turned it
into their "living document", the content and meaning of which can be changed to suit any new plundering or exploitation
opportunity. The vultures and parasites, feeding on the life-blood of New Zealand, continue to find deep-set, profound, "hidden
meanings" within the solitary sentence they've allowed to remain of the original, 1840 Treaty.

Most of this seems to have occurred since about 1975, after Europeans and other non-Maori were deliberately written out of the
Treaty, with the introduction of the Treaty of Waitangi Act of Parliament 1975. What had formerly been rendered and well
understood as, "and all the people of New Zealand" in Article 2, became exclusively, "the Chiefs and Tribes of New Zealand
and to the respective families and individuals thereof". Further to that, the Treaty document was combed and squeezed in an effort
to extract hidden meanings. Professor Kawhura's new translation of the Maori text was substituted in to replace the understandings and
meanings that had persisted and been adhered to, under law, for about 140 years. We find in Kawhura's reworked Treaty that New
Zealand was to be "received" by the Queen and not "ceded". The Laws/Articles in the Treaty are "presented" and not "offered".
Professor Kawhura also redefined "taonga" to mean something far more expansive that transcended the "physical" into the
"spiritual" realm. William's (circa 1844) dictionary* translates taonga "as property and goods" and the official translation from the
Department of Maori Development,"as personal property". Professor Kawhura decided it could newly mean, "all their
treasures"...a seemingly small difference in meaning, but a vast difference in what can be prised from the taxpayer under the open-
ended definition of, "spiritual treasure" (religion). *See also: Kendall and Lee's Grammar and Vocabulary (1820).

What things were understood to mean to the Chiefs and all others there present at Waitangi in 1840, can best be summed up by
Missionary Henry Williams, who provided the final wording of the Maori version of the Treaty of Waitangi:

"We gave them but one version, explaining clause by clause, showing the advantages to them being taken under the fostering
care of the British Government, by which act they would become one people with the British, in the suppression of wars, and
of every lawless act; under one Sovereignty and one law, human and divine".

I really would like to know who the treacherous individuals were who "reinterpreted" and "rewrote" the new, 1975 English version of
the "official" and solitary, signed Treaty document (originally written in Maori, such that it could be read and understood by the Maori
Chiefs in 1840). The longstanding, well understood original document was recently transposed into this, "far more ethnically limited
and exclusive" 1975 Act of Parliament. Whoever engineered this ruse and deception appears to have been working to a sinister

                                                                                                                                      33
hidden agenda, probably hatched by "big business interests", intent upon gaining access to New Zealand's nationally owned, tied up
and otherwise unavailable, "resource wealth".

This initiated the era of exploitation and plunder wherein European and other non-Maori ethnicities, even though they had generations
of family history in New Zealand, became, increasingly, second class citizens, obliged to pay massive reparations for, mostly,
imagined and manufactured grievances or "customary rights" interpretations, based solely upon "race". Of the multi-billion dollar
payouts or resource "giveaways" since the creation of the (circa 1975) Treaty Industry, only a meager few fat-cats within the greater
population ever became the final recipients and beneficiaries of the extorted wealth.

Needless to say, these few hundred money grubbers have enriched themselves greatly in the process of stealing our Treaty and have
turned our former system of "Equality" into one of "Apartheid". Their newly created, multi-billion dollar Treaty Industry came at
a terrible, crippling cost to ALL (otherwise dispossessed) New Zealanders.

The tremendous unfairness and hardship that has been foisted upon all New Zealanders by these "nouveau elitist" reinterpretations of
the Treaty are the very issues which should be laid before the Privy Council of Great Britain for redress. The newly dispossessed
population of New Zealand requires a profound ruling by the Privy Council, related to the true intent and content of the Treaty, as
fashioned and understood in 1840 and sealed by "custom and practice" in the affairs of New Zealand for the century and a half that
followed.

Isn't it ironic that the leading advocate for the "dumping" of the Privy Council, against the wishes of the vast majority of New
Zealanders, was Margaret Wilson, Attorney General and Minister of Waitangi Treaty Claims? Once the Privy Council has been
axed, New Zealand will never be able to return to its former status of equality, as the "replacement" court, envisioned by Margaret
Wilson, beyond and above our Court of Appeals, will always include a judge from the very biased, "Maori elitist/ big business" owned
and operated, Waitangi Tribunal. Once the Privy Council are gone, so also, increasingly, are our rights to redress under Magna
Carta...the foundation laws upon which the Treaty of Waitangi is supported and built. Our highest court will be a "corporate" based
court, where rights related to "common law" will not apply and "statutes, policies, codes and regulations" can overrule traditional
common law rights. The Privy Council are cognizant of and take into account "common law rights" in their rulings.

A COSY LITTLE FAMILY COOPERATIVE

Here are the key players:




                                                                                                                                     34
Chief Justice of New Zealand, Dame Sian Elias, who formerly worked with the law firm of Donna Hall, wife of Justice Edward
Durie (Waitangi Tribunal Chairman). Dame Sian Elias is married to "big business mogul", Hugh Fletcher and is largely
responsible for the evolution of the "Waitangi claims industry". In private practice Dame Sian dealt with Treaty-related
issues, including acting as senior counsel in cases for Justice Durie's wife, Donna Hall, and others.

Edward Taihakurei Durie and Donna Hall, his wife have come under heavy criticism for years and have been publicly accused
of running a major, very lucrative scam by such publications as "The National Business Review" (1999). Another publication
related to the "Rich-List" for 2000 states, 'The Treaty of Waitangi settlement process had been kind to some Maori, including
specialist treaty lawyer Donna Hall, wife of High Court judge and Waitangi Tribunal chairman Justice Eddie Durie. Her
earnings over several years from treaty settlement legal fees could be $10 million, said the rich list'.

The Waitangi Fisheries Commission chairman, Sir Tipene O'Regan, deputy Sir Robert Mahuta and former commissioner Sir
Graham Latimer were in the $1 million to $5 million zone. http://www.brewing.co.nz/20000519richlist.htm

Another publication states,'ACT and its house organ the National Business Review got personal with its attack on the treaty
claim process, targeting Waitangi Tribunal chairman chief judge Eddie Durie and his wife, lawyer Donna Hall. Initially the
stories rehashed allegations Durie ghosted briefs of evidence Hall presented to the tribunal, allegations which had been dealt
with in 1992 by a ministerial inquiry conducted by retired judge Sir Peter Quilliam. NBR quoted former tribunal director
Buddy Mikaere saying he had found such briefs, and that "it was the starting point of a deteriorating relationship which got
increasingly acrimonious over the next few years." The NBR failed to ask whether Mikaere had his own conflicts of evidence,
such as letting a contract to his wife, historian Lindsay Head, or giving priority to funding for the claims of his own Hauraki
tribe. NBR also alleged Durie dictated much of the 1995 review of the Crown Forestry Rental Trust by Hall and professors
Margaret Wilson, Alan Ward and Whatarangi Winiata. The Wellington District Law Society reopened an investigation of
Hall after a former secretary claimed Hall ordered her to forge the signature of an associate, St Clair Macintosh, on an
amended statement of claim. Hall said NBR was mounting a smear campaign at the behest of supporters of the Treaty of
Waitangi Fisheries Commission angry at her orchestration of urban Maori claims. Commission chairman Sir Tipene O'Regan
denied any such vendetta, but confirmed the commission had helped NBR with parts of its research.
http://webnz.co.nz/tekorero/k99/aug99-k/kaug99-res.html

Margaret Wilson: Here are some quotable quotes concerning her and her track record.




                                                                                                                             35
"Margaret Wilson certainly has a significant role in the policy making process. I‟d say her stamp has been over quite a few
things that have been done by the current government. She‟s probably not in the operations loop as far as I can see but she is
very much in the policy loop."

By far the biggest looming concern about Wilson, however, is capacity to stack the bench of the new Supreme Court with
judges sympathetic to Labour‟s social and political agenda.

In a perceptive analysis of the inherent danger surrounding the proposed new court, National Business Review‟s Jock
Anderson pulled few punches recently:

It will be run by a woman and a Maori is guaranteed a seat.

Who else will make up the new five-judge Supreme Court will be decided by advisers hand picked by Attorney-General
Margaret Wilson and rubber-stamped by Governor-General and former High Court judge Dame Silvia Cartwright.

One of those advisers will be former governor-general, Anglican cleric and Maori Sir Paul Reeves.

The court will be headed by Chief Justice Dame Sian Elias (53), with part-time High Court judge and Waitangi Tribunal
chairman Justice Eddie Durie (62) a certainty to fill the role of a judge "well versed in tikanga Maori."

There is an expectation that an overly-gung ho Ms Wilson will extend political patronage and appoint people sympathetic to
her views on politics, judicial activism, social engineering, middle-class guilt and white-man bashing.

When Ms Wilson looks outside the judiciary for new Supreme Court judges she can appoint anyone who has held a lawyer‟s
practising certificate for seven years.

That is the same criteria for appointing High Court judges.

It would allow her, for example, to appoint high-profile briefs such as corporate lawyer and professional company director
James Farmer QC, former publishing darling and lawyer to Prime Minister Helen Clark Hugh Rennie QC.

It could also open the door for the appointment of other high-profile Maori lawyers such as corporate lawyer and former law
commissioner Denese Henare, Treaty of Waitangi specialist Annette Sykes and Justice Durie‟s wife and treaty grievance

                                                                                                                             36
consultant Donna Hall, who failed at considerable personal cost in her August bid to sue The National Business Review for
alleged defamation.

"I think you‟ve got a series of major risks around Margaret Wilson and I guess choosing judges is one," agrees National‟s
McCully.

And like Murray McCully before him, the Maxim Institute director also has concerns about the reinterpretation of Waitangi.

"People are trying to insert all kinds of things into the treaty, but it‟s a back reading into the treaty – it‟s not what was
intended. It‟s sort of assuming a set of values today, a having become convinced of those values now ruling, they take those
values and insert them back into the Treaty of Waitangi and say, „that‟s what the treaty was saying‟. It wasn‟t saying that at
all". http://www.investigatemagazine.com/feb3pow.htm

METAMORPHOSIS OF A SCAM OF IMMENSE PROPORTIONS.

Prior to 1975 New Zealand was a relatively rich little country. Our policies since WWII had reflected reasonable frugality and thrift
and we owned many S.O.E's (State Owned Enterprises). These included our telecommunications network, shipping transport
including airways and railways, coal and mineral resources or reserves, forestry, fisheries, hospitals and medical systems, electricity
and hydroelectric resources, national parks and tourism, etc. Each of these items and developed services were fully owned by the
people and administered by the government, who had to account, on an annual basis, for development costs, maintenance or general
expenditure of the S.O.E's..

Big business interests were anxious to move into the New Zealand economy and break up this "socialised block" of lucrative
resources, such that they could take control of them. The catch-cry of American led capitalism was that "socialised" or government
(people) ownership of such assets was inefficient and akin to "communism". In the capitalist world marketplace the derogatory label
of pseudo-communists was leveled at those countries of the "West" maintaining a degree of public ownership of their assets...countries
like Australia, New Zealand, Britain, France, Sweden or other of the Scandinavians, etc.

Between the middle sixties and about 1974, the influences of the American "black pride" movement took root in New Zealand and
many groups like the Polynesian Panther Party started up. These activist wannabes imported all of the Americanisms, almost as a
fashion statement, and searched for gripes to legitimise some sort of a cause. I well remember the the Polynesian Panther Party tent at
the Ponsonby fair in 1974, with posters of black activists, Angela Davis and H. Rap Brown pinned to the back wall. The girls running
the tent were wearing the big sunglasses and tight glossy red hair scarfs, typical of the American Negro women of the time. Inasmuch

                                                                                                                                          37
as I'd just returned from several years in the United States and was fully conversant with the "race riots" and issues of America's racial
developments, I pressed one of the spokeswomen on how her group had anything in common with the Americans. In conversation, her
futile attempts to proffer a basic explanation fell apart and I was able to see that her "cause" was nothing but a trendy affectation.
About a month after arriving back from the States my brother was at a party where a hui was being held up front and the younger set
was socialising out back. One young Maori guy, learning that my brother had just arrived in from the States, started up about Malcom
X, the Black Panthers and all manner of gushy hero worship related to the black pride movement. My brother, in a reasonably
inebriated state said emphatically, 'and what's any of that got to do with you...you're Polynesian...if you walked up to a black
man over there he'd think you were a Mexican and eat you'!

Out of this trendy Maori/ Polynesian flirtation with the black American cause, a formerly nonexistent racial division began to be
"manufactured" in New Zealand. Most New Zealanders were utterly bewildered and appalled to see it arising. One of the catch
phrases of the day, from very down-to-earth and sensible people, was that, 'racism is something that's created by people talking
about it'. We'd been a very successful society, with few known racial animosities. The only racial tensions I was aware of, locally,
existed between the various groups of recently arrived Islanders who had come down from Western Polynesia to live and work in New
Zealand. By the time I was 19, I'd lived pretty much exclusively with Maoris for four full years, two years of which was in their
homes. I'd been in attendance at the tangis and the other functions of the Maraes on innumerable occasions. We'd all been getting on
very well, as far as I could tell, until the Americanisms were imported and a wedge was deliberately driven between us by the self-
serving "money-grubbers", intent upon turning ill-conceived grievances into dollars.

Beyond 1974 the mood grew ever darker, as social engineers found more inventive ways to divide and rule. Big business was
constantly pushing to break up and take ownership of our State Owned Enterprises and in the 20-years that followed, through
treacherous collusion with, undoubtedly, "bought off" corrupt politicians, they stripped the cupboard bare, leaving us bereft of our
wealth and well-being. One mechanism that seems to have worked very effectively for them is the creation of the Treaty Industry,
which has "muddied the waters" and "confused the issue of ownership, as well as Sovereignty". The very powerful PR
machinery of the Treaty Industry has, for years, dominated the media in an attempt to saturate our nation with "white man's guilt".

OUT WITH THE TREATY - IN WITH THE FIVE PRINCIPLES.

'In 1975 when the Waitangi Tribunal was established, it was soon found that it was difficult to establish Treaty claims using the full
English and Maori texts of the Treaty of Waitangi, or the "official" translations. It was decided by the lawyer-led Labour Government
and Maoridom, after ten years or so of struggling to prove a claim, behind closed doors and without public debate, to create Five
"made to order" Principles for Crown Action on the Treaty of Waitangi. Although these Principles bear little, if any, resemblance
to the Treaty of Waitangi (the Treaty has no such Principles), they were very quickly accepted into law and are now solely interpreted

                                                                                                                                       38
by the Waitangi Tribunal. These Principles are now used extensively as the basis for all Treaty of Waitangi claims, as well as local
and Central Government legislation to benefit Maori only' (Ross Baker).

Principal 1:

      The Principle of Government
      The Kawanatanga Principle

The Government has the right to govern and to make laws.

Principle 2:

      The Principle of Self Management
      The Rangitiratanga Principle

The iwi have the right to organise as iwi and under the law to control the resources they own.

Principle 3:

      The Principle of Equality
      All New Zealanders are equal under the law.

Principle 4:

      The Principle of reasonable cooperation

Both the Government and the iwi are obliged to accord each other reasonable cooperation on major issues of common concern.

Principle 5:

      The Principle of Redress




                                                                                                                                       39
The Government is responsible for providing effective processes for the resolution of grievances in the expectation that reconciliation
can occur.

So what's wrong with these very nice sounding and noble "Principles"?...well nothing really, except, THEY'RE NOT THE
TREATY OF WAITANGI.

So, what's now left of the original Treaty of Waitangi?...well nothing really, except one sentence in Article 2, WHICH HAS BEEN
SO SEVERELY TAMPERED WITH IT DOESN'T, IN ANY WAY, RESEMBLE THE MEANING CONVEYED IN THE
ORIGINAL TREATY.

All that the Five Principles do is provide a very fertile legal arena, "where anything goes". One legal precedent builds upon another in
a rising crescendo of madness, and the original Articles, built into the real Treaty, don't any longer apply, such that the money-
grubbing opportunists can run amok unhindered. Interpretations on how to apply the "Five Principles" are the exclusive domain of the
very one sided Waitangi Tribunal and in this very biased arena there are no real controls or limitations imposed. So far the "Five
Principles" have acted as the mechanism to extort about 8-billion dollars out of All New Zealanders, in only twenty years. This is what
happens when opportunists and inventive liars are allowed to BREAK TREATIES.

THE PRETENDED LEGAL JUSTIFICATION FOR THROWING AWAY THE TREATY AND REPLACING IT WITH
THE FIVE PRINCIPLES.

By the mid-1960's the content and intent of the Treaty of Waitangi, after 125-years of faithful adherence to its Articles, was not in
dispute or contention by New Zealanders. We didn't need analysts pouring through the Maori wording, trying to find alternative
explanations or meanings. One perceived "chink in the Treaty armour", which the conniving opportunists attempted to exploit to
the max, was that the "original, English language draft copy", penned by William Hobson or his secretary, didn't seem to exist
anymore. Despite the fact that the Maori version was "back translated" into English on many occasions during the 1800's and always
achieved the same, honest and long-understood meanings in the process, this factor was deliberately overlooked by "modern"
opportunists wanting to create a "Treaty Industry". The meddlers also had access to Resident, James Busby's raw draft, which
had, according to historical accounts, been upgraded by Hobson in line with the pre-assigned stipulations and requirements of the
Colonial Office. Hobson had been fully briefed before coming to New Zealand and, unless basic Articles were accepted as binding
upon the chiefs, the whole Treaty business was to be declared "null and void". The British were still very reluctant to get involved in
New Zealand's tumultuous affairs in 1840 and if they did it had to be only on certain set terms....full Sovereignty ceded to Queen
Victoria and all New Zealanders becoming British subjects with equal rights and standing under one law.



                                                                                                                                      40
Much has been made of the "missing final draft", approved by Hobson and given to long-term Missionary and fluent linguist, Henry
Williams at 4 pm of February 4th 1840. The process of translation into the Maori language endured through the night, and by about
9am of the 5th, the Maori version, based solely on the wording of Hobson's final draft, had been very carefully written and was being
reviewed. The final Treaty document now existed in the Maori language and was ready to be explained to the chiefs at Waitangi,
scheduled for that same day (5th of February at 10 am)... resulting in either approval and acceptance or disapproval and rejection.
Initially, signing was tentatively scheduled for the 7th, as it was felt it would take the chiefs a couple of days and nights, at least, to
discuss the matter in an ongoing hui.

The modern-day conniving opportunist argue that, in lieu of Hobson's final draft, which seemingly disappeared forever from history,
the Maori meaning for such words as "taonga" can now be expanded to mean more than just "physical property and goods". It doesn't
matter that for over 135-years it only meant "physical" possessions ...now it could be upgraded to also include "spiritual possessions
and treasures", which really opened up the bank vault doors for full on, unrelenting plunder of New Zealand. The opportunists, with
their new found-old religious beliefs, went berserk, like sugar craving children at a "lolly scramble".

BUT HOBSON'S ORIGINAL, FINAL DRAFT DOES EXIST AND WAS DEPOSITED INTO THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES
IN WELLINGTON IN 1992!

Continue

                         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

                                                              FOREWORD

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


                                                                                                                                          41
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.

Compelling evidence shows that James Reddy Clendon was in attendance when the final English draft of the Treaty of Waitangi was
completed by Busby under Hobson‟s direction and that the final drafting session of the 4th of February 1840 took place at Clendon‟s
Okiato home near Kororareka. Further evidence suggests that, at the same time, Clendon made his own transcribed duplicate of this
finalised English text, again on W. Tucker 1833 paper, which he later forwarded as Despatch No. 6 to the U.S. Secretary of State on
the 20th of February 1840.

On the 5th of April 1840, American Antarctic explorer, Commodore Charles Wilkes also sent this selfsame English version of the
treaty in his Despatch no. 64 to the U.S. Secretary of State. Wilkes, officially, requested that U.S. Consul J.R. Clendon supply him
with treaty related materials for despatch, after arriving at the Bay of Islands on the 29th of March 1840. A copy of the final English
draft of the Treaty of Waitangi, complete with Busby‟s spelling mistakes, was transcribed for or by Wilkes directly from Busby‟s
original (the Littlewood Treaty). Clendon supplied the document to Wilkes on April 3rd 1840 and a transcribed copy was despatched
to the United States two days later, with yet another copy being recorded in the U.S.S Vincennes‟ letter book.

Whereas our National Archives, in conjunction with Auckland Institute & Museum, seem to have retained all of the English draft
notes of the treaty, written up until the 3rd of February 1840, there is no single body of text within those rough notes that could be
defined as a “final draft”. The document that has come to be known as the Littlewood Treaty is, singularly and uniquely, the only
complete body of text, incorporating a Preamble, Articles I, II, III and Affirmation section, fitting all of the expected “final
English draft” criteria. Hobson and the other legislators who assisted him had an absolute obligation to supply the translators with a
complete body of text, such that there would be no ambiguity or confusion related to what had to be translated and conveyed in the
Maori tongue. The Littlewood document‟s text mirrors the Maori translation text perfectly throughout, in terms of the sequence of

                                                                                                                                      42
statements, word weight per sentence and the use of synonymous words in each language. Under the strictest criteria one wishes to
apply scientifically, the Littlewood Treaty fits the expected profile of the final English draft.

Despite promises to the Littlewood family in 1989 and the general public in 1992 that a full forensic analysis would be undertaken by
our experts to determine the pedigree and historical significance of the Littlewood Treaty document, no such results have ever been
released to the public. This gross dereliction of duty requires a full explanation from our authorities, especially in view of the fact
that traditional Treaty of Waitangi interpretations have undergone such radical revision in the past three decades.

Rediscovery of Hobson‟s final English draft offered the surprising and unexpected opportunity to fully clarify his intent at the outset,
as well as the true and actual substance of the unification agreement he put in place between Maori chiefs and the British Crown on
February 6th 1840.

In Article II of the Littlewood Treaty the rights spoken of and enshrined by treaty are guaranteed „to the chiefs and tribes and to all
the people of New Zealand‟. This is exactly what the Maori Tiriti O Waitangi says: „ki nga Rangitira ki nga hapu - ki nga tangata
katoa o Nu Tirani‟. The text, in both languages guarantees equality for all the people of New Zealand, with no special customary
rights set aside, exclusively, for any one ethnic group. Under both the Tiriti O Waitangi and the final English draft from which it was
derived, there is no provision for a partnership between Maori and the Crown (Queen Victoria). There is only provision for the Maori
chiefs to cede their sovereignty to Queen Victoria, such that they and their people can become British subjects and the recipients of
British laws, protections and justice.

The Treaty of Waitangi version that is used in all of our legislation today is based upon a composite English text, assembled by
Hobson‟s secretary, James Stuart Freeman, from the early rough notes of the treaty. In the six months following the signing of the
Treaty at Waitangi, Freeman concocted a variety of “Royal Style” versions, earmarked solely for overseas despatch. For these he did
not consult the final English draft, probably because it lacked the necessary pretentious language, considered by him as befitting
royalty or high stations within foreign governments. Our present day treaty legislation is, therefore, wholly based upon Busby‟s 3rd of
February rough draft, wherein he forgot to mention the “settlers” or the rights of Ngati Wikitoria (the family of Queen Victoria). In
terms of the true treaty wording, this oversight was fully corrected by Hobson, with the essential, missing phrase added into the final
English draft of the 4th of February 1840. The earlier forgotten text, ensuring settler rights equal to Maori, was later incorporated
into Te Tiriti O Waitangi by the translators, Reverend Henry Williams and his son Edward.

Our legislators are knowingly using a rejected and discarded, early rough draft treaty version when fashioning and interpreting our
laws, which was superseded by a final draft.



                                                                                                                                       43
Deliberate distortions of the treaty‟s meanings have, since 1975, been the source of much aggravation, division and hardship for the
people of New Zealand. Social engineers, opportunists and political activists, in collusion with their highly paid lawyers, have spun
such a web of legalese deceit around the treaty as to render its original intents incomprehensible. Despite acting as the foundation
document for positive, unified progress in the century following its inception, our Treaty of Waitangi has been lately hijacked by
malevolent‟s and reduced to a yoke of oppression and formula for apartheid...something that its creators and signatories never
conceived it could ever become!

In actual fact, all that our legislators have ever had to do since February 6th 1840 is consult the crystal-clear wording of the Maori
Tiriti O Waitangi for guidance when drafting laws and Acts of Parliament. Most New Zealanders aren‟t aware that the Maori text is
benign and benevolent to all. No exploitation of the general public is possible under the friendly, all-encompassing, all-inclusive
wording of its clauses, nor does it legally relegate anyone to the status of a second class citizen, bereft of any rights that are enjoyed by
other New Zealanders. Unfortunately, the Maori Tiriti O Waitangi is never used in any of our legislation.

Our true Treaty of Waitangi has been removed and supplanted by a false treaty!

Read the entire book free online by clicking the "Next" button below.

To purchase the book in hard copy, CLICK HERE

                                                                   Next




                           The Littlewood Treaty, The True English Wording of the Treaty of Waitangi,
                                                       by Martin Doutré.

              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

LORD NORMANBY'S WRITTEN INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN TO HOBSON ON THE 14th OF AUGUST 1839 IN ENGLAND

We have not been insensible to the importance of New Zealand to the interests of Great Britain in Australia, nor unaware of the great
natural resources by which that country is distinguished, or that its geographical position must, in seasons, either of peace or war,

                                                                                                                                          44
enable it in the hands of civilised men to exercise a paramount influence in that quarter of the globe. There is probably no part of the
Earth in which colonisation could be effected with greater or surer prospect of national advantage.

On the other hand the Ministers of the Crown have been restricted by still higher motives, from engaging in such an enterprise. They
have deferred to the advice of the Committee of the House of Commons in the year 1836 to enquire into the state of the aborigines
residing in the vicinity of our colonial settlements, and have concurred with that Committee, in thinking that the increase in national
wealth and power, promised by the acquisition of New Zealand, would be most inadequate compensation for the injury which must be
inflicted on this kingdom itself by embarking on a measure essentially unjust, and but too certainly fraught with calamity to a
numerous and inoffensive people whose title to the soil and to the sovereignty to New Zealand is indisputable and has been solemnly
recognised by the British Government. We retain these opinions in unimpaired force and though circumstances entirely beyond our
control have at length compelled us to alter our course, I do not scruple to avow that we depart from it with extreme reluctance.

The necessity for the interposition of Government has, however, become too evident to admit to any further inaction. The reports
which have reached this office within the last few months establish the facts that about the commencement of 1838, a body of not less
than two thousand British subjects, has become permanent inhabitants of New Zealand, that amongst them were many persons of bad
and doubtful character - convicts who had fled from our penal settlements, or seamen who had deserted their ships - and that these
people, unrestrained by any law and amenable to no Tribunals, were alternately the authors and victims of every species of crime and
outrage. It further appears that extensive cessions of land have been obtained from the natives and that several hundred persons have
recently sailed from this country to occupy and cultivate these lands. The spirit of adventure thus been effectually roused it can be no
longer doubted that an extensive settlement of British subjects will be rapidly established in New Zealand, and that unless protected
and restrained by necessary laws and institutions they will repeat unchecked in that corner of the globe the same process of war and
spoliation under which uncivilised tribes have almost invariably disappeared as often as they have been brought into the immediate
vicinity of emigrates from the nations of Christendom. To mitigate, and if possible avert these disasters, and to rescue the emigrants
themselves from the evils of a lawless state of society, it has been resolved to adopt the most effective measures for establishing
amongst them a settled form of civil Government. To accomplish this design is the principal object of your mission.

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.
Believing, however, that their own welfare would, under the circumstances I have mentioned, be best promoted by the surrender to

                                                                                                                                           45
Her Majesty of a right now so precarious and little more than nominal, and persuaded that the benefits of British protection and laws
administered by British judges would far more than compensate for the sacrifice by the natives of a national independence which they
are no longer able to maintain, Her Majesty's Government have resolved to authorise you to treat with the aborigines of New Zealand
in the recognition of Her Majesty's sovereign authority over the whole or any part of those Islands which they may be willing to place
under Her Majesty's dominion. I am not aware of the difficulties by which such a treaty may be encountered. The motives by which it
is recommended are, of course, open to suspicion. The natives may probably regard with distrust a proposal which may carry on the
face of it the appearance of humiliation on their side and of a formidable encroachment on ours: and their ignorance even of the
technical terms in which that proposal must be conveyed, may enhance their aversion to an arrangement of which they may be unable
to comprehend the exact meaning or probable results. These, however, are impediments to be gradually overcome by the exercise on
your part of mildness, justice and perfect sincerity in your intercourse with them. You will, I trust, find powerful auxiliaries amongst
the missionaries who have won and deserve their confidence; and amongst the older British residents who have studied their character
and acquired their language. It is almost superfluous to say that, in selecting you for the discharge of this duty, I have been guided by
firm reliance on your uprightness and plain dealing.

You will therefore frankly and unreservedly explain to the natives or their chiefs the reasons which should urge them to acquiesce in
the proposals you will make to them. Especially you will point out to them the dangers to which they may be exposed by the residence
amongst them of settlers amenable to no laws or tribunals of their own and the impossibility of Her Majesty extending to them any
effectual protection unless the Queen be acknowledged as the Sovereign of their country, or at least of those districts within or
adjacent to which Her Majesty's subjects lands or habitations. If it should be necessary to propitiate their consent by presents or other
pecuniary arrangements, you will be authorised to advance at once to a certain extent in meeting such demands, and beyond those
limits you will reserve and refer them for the decision of Her Majesty's Government.

It is not, however, to the mere recognition of the sovereign authority of the Queen that your endeavours are to be confined, or your
negotiations directed. It is further necessary that the chiefs should be induced, if possible, to contract with you, as representing Her
Majesty, that henceforward no lands shall be ceded, either gratuitously or otherwise, except to the Crown of Great Britain.
Contemplating the future growth and extension of a British colony in New Zealand, it is an object of the first importance that the
alienation of the unsettled lands within the limits should be conducted from its commencement upon that system of sale of which
experience has proved the wisdom, and the disregard of which has been so fatal to the prosperity of other British settlements. With a
view to those interests it is obviously the same thing whether large tracts of land be acquired by the mere gift of the Government or the
purchases effected on nominal considerations from the aborigines. On either supposition the land revenue must be wasted, the
introduction of emigrants delayed or prevented, and the country parceled out amongst large land owners whose possession must long
remain an unprofitable, or rather pernicious waste. Indeed in a comparison of the two methods of acquiring land gratuitously, that of
grants from the Crown, mischievous as it is, would be the less inconvenient, as such grants must be made with at least some kind of

                                                                                                                                       46
system, with some degree of responsibility, subject to some conditions, and recorded for general information. But in the case of
purchases from the natives even these securities against abuse must be omitted, and none could be substituted for them. You will
immediately on your arrival announce, by proclamation addressed to all the Queen's subjects in New Zealand that Her Majesty will
not acknowledge as valid any title to land which either has been, or shall hereafter be acquired in that country which is not either
derived from or confirmed by a grant to be made in Her Majesty's name and on Her behalf. You will, however, at the same time take
care to dispel any apprehensions which may be created in the minds of the settlers that it is intended to dispossess the owners of any
property which has been acquired on equitable conditions, and which is not upon a scale which must be prejudicial to the latent
interests of the community. Extensive acquisitions of such lands have undoubtedly been already obtained, and it is probable that
before your arrival a great addition will have been made to them. The embarrassments occasioned by such claims will demand your
earliest and most careful attention.

I shall in the sequel explain the relation in which the proposed colony will stand to the Government of New South Wales. From that
relation I propose to drive the resources necessary for encountering the difficulties I have mentioned. The Governor of that colony
will, with the advice of the Legislative Council, will be instructed to appoint a Legislative Commission to investigate and ascertain
what are the lands held by British subjects under grants from the natives; how far such grants were lawfully acquired and ought to be
respected; and what may have been the price or other valuable consideration given to them. The Commissioners will make their report
to the Governor, and it will then be decided by him how far the claimants, or any of them, may be entitled to confirmatory grants from
the Crown, and on what conditions such confirmations ought to be made.

The propriety of immediately subjecting to a small annual tax all uncleared lands within the British settlements in New Zealand will
also engage the attention of the Governor and council of New South Wales. The forfeiture of all lands in respect of which the tax shall
remain for a certain period in arrear would probably before long restore to the demesne of the Crown so much of the waste land as
may be held unprofitably to themselves, and the public by the actual claimants. Having by these methods obviated the dangers of the
acquisition of large tracts of the country by mere land-jobbers, it will be your duty to obtain by fair and equal contracts with the
natives the cession to the Crown of such waste lands as may be progressively required for the occupation of settlers resorting to New
Zealand. All such contracts should be made by yourself, through the intervention of an officer expressly appointed to watch over the
interests of the aborigines as their protector. The re-sale of the first purchases that may be made will provide the funds necessary for
future acquisitions, and beyond the original investment of a comparatively small sum of money, no other resources should be
necessary for this purpose. I thus assume that the price to be paid to the natives by the local Government will bear an exceedingly
small proportion to the price for which the same lands will be re-sold by the Government to the settlers, nor is there any real injustice
in this inequality. To the natives and their chiefs much of the land in the country is of no actual use, and in their hands it possesses
scarcely an exchangeable value. Much of it must long remain useless, even in the hands of the British Government also, but its value
in exchange shall be first created, and then progressively increased by the introduction of capital and of settlers from this country. In

                                                                                                                                       47
the benefits arising from that increase the natives themselves will gradually participate.

All dealings with the natives for their lands must be conducted on the same principles of sincerity, justice and good faith as must
govern your transactions with them for the recognition of Her Majesty's sovereignty in the Islands. Nor is that all: they 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.

There are yet other duties owing to the aborigines of New Zealand, which may be all comprised in the comprehensive expression of
promoting their civilisation, understanding by that term whatever relates to religious, intellectual and social advancement of mankind.
For their religious instruction liberal provision has already been made by the zeal of the missionaries, and the Missionary Societies in
this kingdom, and it will be at once the most important and the most grateful of your duties to this ignorant race of men to afford the
utmost encouragement, protection and support to their Christian teachers. I acknowledge also the obligation of rendering to the
Missions such pecuniary aid as the local Government may be able to afford, and as their increased labours may reasonably entitle
them to expect. The establishment of schools for the education of the aborigines in the elements of literature will be another object of
your solicitude, and until they can be brought within the pale of civilised life, and trained to the adoption of its habits, they must be
carefully defended in the observance of their own customs, so far as these are compatible with the universal maxims of humanity and
morals. But the savage practices of human sacrifice and cannibalism must be promptly and decisively interdicted; such atrocities,
under whatever plea of religion they may take place, are not to be tolerated within any part of the dominions of the British Crown.

It remains to be considered in what manner provision is to be made for carrying these instructions into effect and for the establishment
and exercise of your authority over Her Majesty's subjects who may settle in New Zealand, or who are already there. Numerous
projects for the establishment of a constitution for the proposed colony have at different times been suggested to myself and to my
immediate predecessor in office, and during the last session of Parliament, a Bill for the same purpose was introduced into the House
of Commons at the instance of some persons immediately connected with the emigration then contemplated. The same subject was
carefully examined by a Committee of the House of Lords. But the common result of all enquiries, both in this office and either House
of Parliament, was to show the impracticability of the schemes proposed for adoption, and the extreme difficulty of establishing at
New Zealand any institutions, legislative, judicial or fiscal without some more effective control than could be found amongst the
settlers themselves in the infancy of the settlement. It has therefore been resolved to place whatever territories may be acquired in the
sovereignty by the Queen in New Zealand in the relation of dependency to the Government of New South Wales. I am, of course, fully
aware of the objections which may be reasonably urged against this measure, but after the most ample investigation I am convinced

                                                                                                                                       48
that for the present there is no other practicable course which would not be opposed by difficulties still more considerable, although I
trust that the time is not distant when it may be proper to establish in New Zealand itself a local legislative authority.

In New South Wales there is a Colonial Government possessing comparatively long experience, sustained by a large revenue, and
constituted in such a manner as is best adapted to enable the legislative and executive authorities to act with promptitude and decision.
It presents the opportunity of bringing the internal economy of the proposed new colony under the constant revision of a power
sufficiently near to obtain early and accurate intelligence and sufficiently remote to be removed from the influence of the passions and
prejudices by which the first colonists must in the commencement of their enterprise be agitated. It is impossible to confide to an
indiscriminate body of persons who have voluntarily settled themselves in the immediate vicinity of numerous population of New
Zealand, those large and irresponsible powers which belong to the representative system of Colonial Government. Nor is that system
adapted to a colony struggling with the first difficulties of their new situation. Whatever may be the ultimate form of Government to
which the British settlers in New Zealand are to be subject, it is essential to their own welfare, not less than that of the aborigines, that
they should at first be placed under a rule which is at once effective and a considerable degree external. The proposed connection with
New South Wales will not, however, involve the extension to New Zealand of the character of a penal settlement. Every motive
concurs in forbidding this, and it is to be understood as a fundamental principle of the new colony that no convict is ever to be sent
thither to undergo his punishment.

The accompanying copy of my correspondence with the law Officers will be explained to you on the grounds of law on which it is to
be concluded that by the annexation of New Zealand to New South Wales, the powers vested by Parliament in the Governor and
Legislative Council of the older settlement might be exercised over the inhabitants of the new colony. The accompanying Commission
under the Great Seal will give effect to this arrangement, and the warrant that I enclose under Her Majesty's sign manual, will
constitute you Lieutenant-Governor of that part of the New South Wales Colony which has thus been extended over the New Zealand
Islands. These instructions you will deliver to Sir George Gipps, who on your proceeding to New Zealand will place them in your
hands to be published there. You will then return them to him to be deposited amongst the archives of the New South Wales
Government.

In the event of your death or absence, the officer administrating the Government of New South Wales, will, provisionally, and until
Her Majesty's pleasure can be known, appoint a Lieutenant-Governor in your place, under an instrument under the public seal of the
Government.

It is not for the present proposed to appoint any subordinate officers for your assistance. That such appointments will be indispensable
is not, indeed, to be doubted. But I am unwilling at first to advance beyond the strict limits of the necessity which alone induces the
Ministers of the Crown to interfere at all on this subject. You will confer with Sir George Gipps as to the number and nature of the

                                                                                                                                           49
official appointments which would be made at the commencement of the undertaking and as to the proper rate of their emoluments.
These must be fixed with the most anxious regard for frugality and the expenditure of the public resources. The selection of the
individuals by whom such offices are to be borne must be made by yourself from the colonists either of New South Wales or New
Zealand, but upon the full and distinct understanding that their tenure of office, and even the existence of the offices which they are to
hold must be provisional and dependant upon the future pleasure of the Crown. Amongst the offices thus to be created, the most
evidently indispensable are those of a Judge, a Public Prosecutor, a Protector of the Aborigines, a Colonial Secretary, a Treasurer, a
Surveyor General of Lands, and a Superintendent of Police. Of these the Judge alone will require the enactment of a law to create and
define his functions. The Act now pending in Parliament, for the revival, with amendments, of the New South Wales ACT, will, if
passed into law, enable the Governor and Legislative Council to make all necessary provision for the establishment in New Zealand of
a Court of Justice and a judicial system separate from and independent of the existing Supreme Court. The other functionaries I have
mentioned can be appointed by the Governor in the unaided exercise of the delegated prerogative of the Crown Whatever laws may be
required for the Government of the new colony will be enacted by the Governor and Legislative Council. It will be his duty to bring
under their notice, such recommendations as you may see cause to convey to him on subjects of this nature. The absolute necessity of
the revenue being raised to defray the expenses of the Government of the proposed settlement in New Zealand has not, of course,
escaped my careful attention. Having consulted the Lords of the Treasury on this subject, I have arranged with their Lordships that
until the sources of such revenues shall have been set in action, you should be authorised to draw on the Government of New South
Wales for your unavoidable expenditure. Separate accounts, however, will be kept of the public revenue of New Zealand and the
application of it, and whatever debt may be contracted to New South Wales, must be replaced by the earliest possible opportunity.
Duties of import on tobacco, spirits, wine and sugar will probably supersede the necessity of any other taxation, and such duties except
on spirits, will probably be of very moderate amount.

The system at present established in New South Wales regarding land will be applied to all waste lands which may be acquired by the
Crown in New Zealand.

Separate accounts must be kept of the Land revenue, subject to the necessary deductions for the expense of surveys and management,
and for the improvement by roads and otherwise of the unsold territory, and subject to any deductions which may be required to meet
the indispensable exigencies of the local Government. The surplus of the revenue will be applicable, as in New South Wales, to the
charge of removing emigrants from this kingdom to the new colony.

The system established in New South Wales to provide for the religious instruction of the inhabitants has so fully justified the policy
by which it was dictated that I could suggest no better means of providing for this all-important object in New Zealand. It is, however,
gratifying to know that the spiritual wants of the settlers will, in the commencement of the undertaking, be readily and amply provided
for by the missionaries of the established Church of England, and the other Christian communions, who have been so long settled on

                                                                                                                                       50
those Islands. It will not be difficult to secure for the European inhabitants some portion of that time and attention which the
missionaries have hitherto devoted exclusively to the aborigines.

I enclose, for your information and guidance, copies of a correspondence between this department and the Treasury, referring you to
Sir George Gipps for such additional instructions as may enable you to give full affect to the view of Her Majesty's Government on
the subject of finance. You will observe that the general principle is that of maintaining in the proposed colony a system of revenue,
expenditure, and account entirely separate from that of New South Wales, though corresponding with it as far as that correspondence
can be maintained.

After briefly describing the rules to be observed by Captain Hobson in conducting his correspondence with his immediate superior,
Governor Gipps, and the Colonial Office, Lord Normanby concluded his instructions as follows:

I have thus attempted to touch upon all the topics on which it seems to me necessary to address you on your departure from this
country. Many questions have been unavoidably passed over in silence, and many others have been adverted to in a brief and cursory
manner, because I am fully impressed with the conviction that in such an undertaking as that in which you are about to engage much
must be left to your own discretion and many questions must occur which no foresight could anticipate or properly resolve
beforehand. Reposing the utmost confidence in your judgement, experience and zeal for Her Majesty's service and aware of how
powerful a coadjutor and how able a guide you will have in Sir George Gipps, I willing leave for consultation between you many
subjects on which I feel my own incompetency at this distance from the scene of action to form an opinion.

(Text taken from The Treaty of Waitangi, by T.L. Buick, pp 70-79).


                       The Littlewood Treaty, The True English Wording 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

                                                               Chapter 1

     THE FINAL ENGLISH DRAFT OF THE TREATY IS REDISCOVERED AFTER BEING LOST FOR 149-YEARS

Who could possibly have imagined that the passing of an elderly lady named Ethel Littlewood of Pukekohe on the 27th of February
1989, would set off a chain of events with the potential to change the whole political future of New Zealand?

                                                                                                                                     51
A couple of weeks after the funeral of their mother, John Littlewood and his sister, Beryl Needham were engaged in the unenviable
duty of organising the affairs of the deceased estate and sorting through their mother‟s papers. Beryl was going through the drawers of
a sideboard in the living room and found, lying between linen tea towels, an envelope with handwriting on it.




                                                                                                                                     52
The ball-point pen scrawled title on the back of the recent-era envelope said, “Treaty of Waitangi”. Beryl placed the envelope amongst
other papers that she had set aside to read through later when she returned to her home.
A day or two went by before Beryl got around to opening the envelope and spreading it‟s content, a single, folded and frayed sheet of
paper with ink-pen writing on both sides, out on a table. It was immediately apparent to Beryl that this was something of importance,
as the old-looking, handwritten text was obviously in connection with the Treaty of Waitangi. The flip side of the sheet bore a
signature, William Hobson, Lieutenant Governor and a date written as the 4th of February 1840.

There had been a long-standing tradition in the family that a predecessor, Henry Littlewood, John and Beryl‟s great-grandfather, had
somehow been involved in the signing ceremony of the Treaty of Waitangi and had retained a significant document associated with
the treaty events of February 5th & 6th 1840. Henry Littlewood had been a prominent solicitor in New Zealand from as early as 1838
until his death, in Auckland, in 1864. Although John and Beryl‟s parents had mentioned the existence of the document from time to
time, it was always assumed to be in the possession of another branch of the family, the Hamilton‟s.

The two creases on the sheet, where the paper had been unfolded and re-folded many times, were so worn from use that cellophane
sticky tape had been applied, at some era, to stop the paper from falling apart. The tape itself was now very brittle, cracked and yellow
with age, indicating that it had first been applied to the seriously frayed creases several decades earlier.

Some weeks passed before Beryl took the old document to her local Member of Parliament, the Hon. Bill Birch. After scrutinising the
sheet, Mr. Birch suggested that it should be delivered to the Auckland Institute & Museum for assessment by historians and document
experts there. This Beryl did on the 1st of May 1989 and the old piece of paper was formally placed into the care of a Mr. Thwaite.
The receiving historian, after an initial assessment, expressed the opinion that Lieutenant-Governor William Hobson could,
possibly, have penned the document. Mr. Thwaite further promised Beryl that historians and document-restorers would carry out
„identification and conservation‟ work on the potentially important item. Beryl took this to mean that the document‟s handwriting
would be checked by experts to determine the author and that the paper would receive preservation treatment, in order to arrest any
further deterioration.

In reflection, one would think that a “treaty document find” of this magnitude would have sent a ripple of excitement and
anticipation throughout the entire research community. However, nothing was said publicly about the find in 1989 and few, if any, of
our treaty historians seemed to know that the document even existed between 1989 and 1992.

Here‟s what Beryl Needham lodged at the Museum:




                                                                                                                                       53
54
55
Previous pages: The Littlewood document, still marred by old cellophane sticky tape on its folds when Beryl Needham placed it into
the care of the Auckland Institute & Museum on May 1st 1989.

THE LITTLEWOOD TREATY …4th of February 1840.

This is what it said:

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.-


                                                                                                                                     56
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.-

Note: The word “Sovereignty” was misspelled each time it was written. The word “cede” or “ceded” is once spelt as “ceided” with
the “i” crossed out.

Thereafter, Beryl asked her brother, John Littlewood to take charge and monitor any further developments related to the old family
heirloom. John left the document at the Museum for almost an entire year, but, when no information was forthcoming, went and
retrieved it on April 9th 1990. The sheet of paper had, by that time, been worked over by document restorers, who had painstakingly
removed the old, dried out and fragmented cellophane tape from its frayed folds.
When John received the document back into family custody, it was laminated and sealed within a clear protective pouch of rigid
plastic. The formerly promised preservation work had, apparently, been carried out, but the family were still no wiser concerning the
author or significance of their mysterious document.

Over the next two years John undertook a historical search of his own, trying to ascertain what the pedigree of the old sheet was and
how his great grandfather, Henry Littlewood, might have acquired it. On the 7th of April 1992, John and Barbara Littlewood went on
a research excursion to the Waitangi Treaty House near Kerikeri, Northland and had an interview with the curator, Tim Jackson
concerning their document find. Mr. Jackson was, very obviously, impressed by what he saw and promised John that he would contact
the Waitangi Trust and inform them that a new, heretofore unknown, English treaty draft had been discovered. He also said he would
contact the Busby family of Gisborne and, similarly, alert them of the find. No added information was ever forthcoming from Mr.
Jackson, the Waitangi Trust or the Busby family.

In furthering his investigations through resources at the public library, John found a book by treaty expert, Dr Claudia Orange of the
Alexander Turnbull Library. He wrote a letter to Dr. Orange on the 3rd of July 1992, telling her of the document that had been found
amidst family papers in early 1989. As it turned out, Dr. Orange lived not too far from John and Barbara on the opposite side of
Auckland City and was able to call by their home and see them on the 11th of July 1992. She inspected the old paper closely and



                                                                                                                                     57
noted that it had a W. Tucker 1833 watermark impregnated into its surface. This showed that the sheet predated, but was very
contemporary to, the time of the Treaty of Waitangi drafting process or signing ceremony in the first week of February 1840.

Although Dr. Orange could not commit herself to any definitive conclusions prior to conducting further, in-depth scientific and
historical analysis, she was sufficiently impressed by what she saw to state, „It could be the one that was known about, but never
located‟. She was referring to, what has come to be known as, “the lost final draft” of the Treaty of Waitangi in English.

Dr. Orange, in her comments to John and Barbara, noted that either Lieutenant-Governor William Hobson or Reverend Henry
Williams could have written the Littlewood Treaty. She also speculated that it could be a very early back-translation of the Maori
text version. These several encouraging statements, although arising only in casual conversation during a cursory, first inspection of
the old handwritten sheet, were no small admissions for a professional historian. Indeed, in New Zealand historical circles it would be
difficult to conceive of any formerly known-about, lost document more sought-after and significant to our colonial history. By her
own admission, the possibility was that Dr. Orange was looking at and handling the elusive final English draft of the treaty, which had
evaded detection for the past 150-years. Most historians will live out the entirety of their professional lives and never be a party to a
discovery of this immensity. Such a find, for a treaty historian, would be on a par with a Bible historian finding a lost epistle of St.
Paul. Dr. Orange continued to be of assistance to the Littlewood‟s during the months that followed and frequently supplied them with
archival material related to their 1812-1864 ancestor, solicitor Henry Littlewood.

In early July 1992, Beryl Needham, who first discovered the Littlewood Treaty in a living room sideboard drawer, contacted Vanya
Rothwell of DESTOW (Descendants of European Signatories to the Treaty Of Waitangi). As a consequence, Vanya went to Auckland
on the 16th of July 1992 to view the original document at John and Barbara‟s home in Manurewa. During her visit, John recalls how
she stated her opinion that, „she was 98% sure the Littlewood Treaty was the original, final draft of the Treaty of Waitangi‟.
Vanya remembers that the Littlewood Treaty sheet was now laminated within protective plastic, which had been done by the
Auckland Institute & Museum staff in 1989. Thereafter, some DESTOW members included a short article about the Littlewood Treaty
in their magazine and asked their members for assistance in determining the document‟s historical significance.

After 3-years of seeming indifference shown by our scholars towards the find, things began to percolate and hot up in mid-July 1992.
Dr. Claudia Orange had reported back her initial conclusions to Kathryn Patterson, Head Archivist of the National Archives in
Wellington, regarding the historical potentialities of the document.
On the 15th of July John received a letter from Kathryn Patterson requesting that the document be lodged permanently with them. Dr.
Orange phoned John on both the 19th and 20th of July and seemed somewhat anxious or concerned for the document‟s future safety.
In an 8:30 a.m. call to John on the 20th, especially, she suggested, quite strongly, that the document should be deposited with the
National Archives in Wellington as soon as possible. She mentioned that „certain wording within the text might cause particular

                                                                                                                                       58
individuals to not want the document to become public knowledge‟. Also, she intimated, „opportunists, aware of the existence of
such a valuable item in a private home, might wish to break in and steal it‟. A similar alerting phone call was received from
Kathryn Patterson of the National Archives and, on the 20th of July 1992, John, in sober reflection, decided to deposit the old sheet of
paper into National Archives‟ care.

On the 22nd of July 1992, John and Barbara drove to Wellington and the next morning formally surrendered the long held family
heirloom to Head Archivist Kathryn Patterson. John and Barbara were assured that the document would be analysed by handwriting
experts to determine its author, that the paper would undergo any necessary preservation processes within Preservation Services and
that it would be put on display in the Constitution Room beside the other historic treaty documents.

A short time after lodging the Littlewood Treaty with the Archives John received some photocopies of it in the mail for distribution to
senior members of the Littlewood family. In the years to follow, John‟s photocopy seems to have been the only source of images of
the Littlewood Treaty document that members of the public could acquire. Researchers state that when they applied directly to the
Archives for copies, their requests were turned down on one pretext or another. It‟s unknown if the National Archives ever made so
much as one copy available to anyone, other than to their own stable of approved historians.

For only a very short period in 1992 the Littlewood Treaty, as it came to be called, went on display in the Constitution Room of the
National Archives, before disappearing completely from public view and scrutiny for about the next 9 years. At all times that it has
been displayed, only the front page could ever be seen, thus keeping the telltale date of its creation, the 4th of February 1840, out of
sight and out of mind for anyone discerning enough to realise the significance of that written date.

By some means, as yet not established, the media were alerted about the Littlewood Treaty‟s existence, which resulted in TV1
contacting John in early September 1992 and asking him to be interviewed on camera. John, a very unassuming and private person,
did not wish to appear and so the producer contacted Beryl, who agreed to be interviewed. On about the 11th of September 1992 news
was nationally broadcast for the first time to all the people of New Zealand that a very old copy of the treaty, in English, had been
located at Pukekohe, South Auckland.

TV3, not to be outdone, followed up on the story some 3-days later and arranged to film a photocopy reproduction of the Littlewood
Treaty document at John‟s home, on the understanding that John would not be required to appear on camera. During the filming
session the camera panned around the room, catching John unawares and, against his stated wishes, his image was, thereafter,
broadcast into living rooms all over the country.




                                                                                                                                       59
The breaking of the story, nationally, appeared to make an indelible impression upon the Minister of Internal Affairs, the Hon.
Graham Lee, who, in a newspaper interview of September 11th, 1992, expressed his department‟s „irritation‟ that knowledge of the
Littlewood Treaty had been made public. John received a phone call from Mr. Lee, who asked him to „jump on a plane and come to
Wellington immediately‟ so that a planned programme could be devised on „how to handle all of this publicity‟. John, wishing
to shun any further interviews himself, declined Mr. Lee‟s invitation to participate, expressing his feeling that New Zealanders were
now fully aware of the existence of the newly found treaty document.

The family had acted as guardians, preserving the precious item intact for, perhaps, 140 to 150-years. Now it was time for the
historians, handwriting and forensic experts to fulfil their roles in behalf of an expectant, eager-for-updates public. The treaty research
community and many other interested parties wished to know if this was, indeed, the lost and long sought-after, final English draft of
the Treaty of Waitangi, which had disappeared from the historical scenery on or shortly after the 6th of February 1840.

Despite the very reasonable expectation that our experts would complete the simple task of analysis fairly quickly, the general public
was destined to wait in vain. The desired answers to very basic historical or forensic questions would never be shared publicly at any
time during the next twelve years, if ever. It became increasingly obvious that the Littlewood Treaty was a most unwelcome discovery
in certain political circles and was to be kept under wraps permanently…which might go some way towards explaining Mr. Lee‟s
mystifying and unreasonable „irritation‟ that the find was made public.




                                                                                                                                         60
This September 1992 article shows that our historians, at the time, thought that the Littlewood Treaty could be the final
English draft of the Treaty of Waitangi and the document taken to Reverend Henry Williams at 4 p.m. on the 4th of February
1840 for translation into the Maori language. These many years later the public still awaits the promised forensic analysis and
verification, related to this very important historical point.




                                                                                                                             61
Some of the logic proffered by Dr. Claudia Orange, in her 1992 commentary about the attributes of the Littlewood Treaty
document, is quite difficult to fathom. The fact that its wording mirrors the Maori translation perfectly only indicates to Dr.
Orange that it must be a back-translation from the Maori. She concludes this despite the clearly visible fact that the
Littlewood Treaty is dated the 4th of February 1840 and the Maori version did not exist until the day after that. Whereas Dr.
Orange can accept that the “official” English version (which was written on the 3rd of February 1840 and is nothing like the
Maori version) was the source of Williams‟ translation, she cannot, seemingly, see how the Littlewood version could provide
the text for the Maori Tiriti O Waitangi. This is rather bizarre. Williams, only two weeks after completing his translation,
certified that it was „as close as the idiom of the language would admit of‟...in other words, that the Maori version was a
mirror of the English text he‟d been handed by Hobson to use. Such an assertion could not possibly be made regarding the 3rd
of February “official” English version translating (with any degree of accuracy) into Te Tiriti O Waitangi. The only way that
Williams‟ claim could be true is if he used the Littlewood Treaty, or something very close to it, as his English source document
for creating the Maori translation. They are an exact match, whereas the 3rd of February 1840 draft English version and the
Maori Tiriti O Waitangi translation are as different as “chalk & cheese”. In every respect (right down to its author, date &
wording) the Littlewood Treaty document qualified as the “final English draft” that our historians knew was lost and had
been seeking for over 150-years by September 1992.

                                                                                                                              62
A series of newspaper articles in 1992 showed that historians thought the Littlewood Treaty document could be the lost final
English draft of the treaty, which had been much sought-after for more than 150-years. Reflecting on these articles over twelve
years beyond the time they were first printed, one is left to wonder why no scientifically derived results were ever released to
the public concerning the significance of the Littlewood Treaty document.

Some of the 1992 comments lead one to conclude, „thou doth protest too much, methinks‟.

Comments from M.P. Graham Lee that, „the document does not rewrite history, does not change the Treaty of Waitangi‟…or…
his [Internal Affairs] „department‟s irritation that news of the find had been made public‟…or … „There is no guarantee that
even after an enormous amount of work that we will come up with the goods‟ …or… „specialists from the National Archives
and elsewhere now believed they were in for “a long haul in determining who had written the draft”…show that the document
find was causing considerable consternation amongst our experts.


                                                                                                                             63
In retrospect, and in consideration of how easy it should have been to identify the author of the Littlewood Treaty in 1992, it is
mystifying that no such information was ever, officially, released to the public.

THE DEAFENING SILENCE

The September 1992 speculation amongst our leading treaty document experts and historians showed that they believed the
Littlewood Treaty could be the long-lost final English draft of the Treaty of Waitangi. It is fair to say that there was, in New Zealand
historical circles, no other single document likely to engender more interest and expectation than this one.

Every leading treaty expert knew that the final English draft of the treaty, the mother document from which the Maori Tiriti O
Waitangi had been translated, went missing sometime just after the Treaty of Waitangi discussion and signing events of February 5th
and 6th 1840.

Inasmuch as it was the final English draft, which led to the creation of the Maori language version, this English text must have been
what Captain William Hobson read to the crowds, on two consecutive days, at the Waitangi assemblies. We know from the writings of
Reverend Colenso and other witnesses that no-one present disputed the accuracy or mirror-imagery of the two versions when Hobson
read the English clauses and Reverend Henry Williams repeated the same clauses in the Maori language. Some disputes arose during
the much later debate period of the discussions, when Reverend Henry Williams was accused of not translating, verbatim, all that the
Maori chiefs were saying to Hobson.

The task of determining whether or not the Littlewood Treaty qualified as the final English draft was quite simple and should have
been decided within a few days or, at worst, a few weeks of the document coming into the possession of the experts. There wasn‟t, in
actuality, much to contemplate, test or mull over. The document had to meet certain very basic criteria, which were:

• The paper upon which it was written had to predate the treaty-signing event by a plausible period of time. Inasmuch as all paper used
in New Zealand up to the 1840‟s was being imported, one had to calculate purchase and shipping times between destinations. Most
official correspondence of that era was on very good quality paper, which bore the watermark of the manufacturer and a Britannia
figurine. One could broaden the investigation to ascertain who was using a particular mark of paper at the time the treaty was signed
and whose batch lot the paper, used to write the Littlewood Treaty document, had come from.

• The wording had to look like a final draft; that is, it had to be set out as a clearly readable, finished and coherent text by the
legislators who composed and wrote it. It had to have a complete Preamble, followed by 3 clearly written Articles, room for
Hobson‟s signature and title, an Affirmation section and the date. Receiving a complete final draft was imperative, such that the

                                                                                                                                       64
translators would have no difficulty in understanding exactly what was to be conveyed, in what order, during translation into the
Maori language. Full responsibility for getting the compact / contract wording correct was, first and foremost, the job of the
legislators. The translators had to then express those terms and conditions in the Maori tongue „as closely as the idiom of the
language would admit of‟.

In reviewing all of the 12-pages* of English draft notes that survived in our archives since February 1840 there is, clearly, no final
draft to be found amongst them, sufficient to hand to a translator. They are, simply, very rough, preliminary draft notes and there had
to be another document beyond those notes. The newly found Littlewood Treaty fulfils all the requirements of a final draft perfectly in
layout and wording.
*Footnote: There are, in addition, 4-pages of draft notes representing Busby‟s first attempt at writing his 3rd of February rough draft.
These pages are held at Auckland Institute & Museum. From this rough copy he made a clean copy, which was submitted to Hobson
in the evening of the 3rd of February 1840 for discussion and further modification.

• The Maori Tiriti O Waitangi is made up of specific titles, words, clauses and articles, assembled in a particular order. The mother
document in English, from which the Maori text was created, should say exactly the same thing, in the same general sequence and
approximate the same word weight per sentence. A peculiarity of different languages relates to the order in which parts of speech
appear within a sentence. One can take into account that an adept translator might be obliged to reverse the order of some words, such
that everything sounds correct to the native speaker. There should be no odd-ball words or text appearing in one version and not in the
other and both versions should mirror each other „as closely as the idiom of the language would admit of‟.

• If any date were to be written onto the final English draft, then that date would have to be the 4th of February 1840. When the final
draft was handed to Reverend Henry Williams at 4 p.m. on that day, the date of any anticipated signing event was absolutely
unknown. Hobson was hopeful that an agreement could be reached by the 7th of February but, during the assembly of the 5th,
„suggested to the chiefs that they could have ample time, a week, to consider the Treaty‟. The fact that the chiefs wished to sign
on the 6th of February 1840 took Hobson by surprise. The final draft in English was created on the 4th of February and, therefore,
should bear that date. Alternatively, Reverend Henry Williams‟ original translation into Maori was also written out on an ordinary
piece of paper (now lost) and not completed until the 5th of February. That paper copy, which should bear the date of the 5th of
February, was used by Reverend Richard Taylor to create the parchment copy of Te Tiriti O Waitangi signed by the chiefs on the 6th
of February 1840.

• Finally, and most importantly, the handwriting of the document‟s author would provide the definitive clue and our historical
accounts show that British Resident, James Busby, was the individual who wrote the final draft. He said this himself:



                                                                                                                                      65
„The draft of the Treaty prepared by me was adopted by Captain Hobson without any other alteration than a transposition of
certain sentences, which did not in any degree affect the sense‟ (see Appendix to Journals, July 1861, E. No. 2, page 67).

We know from surviving draft notes that Busby wrote two sets of developing, rough drafts of the treaty Articles on the 3rd of
February 1840, to which he added ideas for an ending or Affirmation section. He never actually attempted to write a Preamble
section on the 3rd, as there were already two possible, rough Preamble texts to draw from, one created by William Hobson between
the 31st of January and 1st of February 1840 and another by James Stuart Freeman, somewhere within the same interval of time.

Busby took over all writing duties related to the treaty by about the afternoon of Sunday the 2nd of February 1840. The final wording
was decided upon during a brainstorming session held in the evening of the 3rd of February 1840, with the final words being put to
paper the next morning and early afternoon.

If the Littlewood Treaty were found to be in the handwriting of James Busby, then everything would point to it being the lost,
final English draft of the Treaty of Waitangi. It fitted the clinically precise, historically stringent, defining attributes of the final
draft in all other categories, as it was complete in all sections and its wording mirrored the Maori text perfectly.

In a purely scientific sense, there was never so much as one flaw in the Littlewood Treaty, sufficient to dissuade our experts from
believing that it could be anything other than the final English draft of the Treaty of Waitangi. Whereas it always had the potential to
rein-in and arrest the social havoc caused by those running amok with our treaty, our experts did nothing. Of this dismal state of
affairs, one recalls the saying, „Nero fiddles while Rome burns‟.

                         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

                                                               Chapter 2

                                                     THE ELUSIVE MR. BUSBY

In September 1992, it would have been a very simple matter to determine whether or not James Busby had, indeed, penned the
Littlewood Treaty document. As official British Resident in New Zealand from 1833 until 1840, he had been a prolific writer and
reporter of regional happenings. Many examples of his handwriting were to be found amongst original documents held by the National
Archives of New Zealand, which establishment now possessed the Littlewood Treaty original. Yet further of Busby‟s letters and

                                                                                                                                        66
despatches to his superiors in Australia or Britain were available on microfilm at all the main city centres and universities of New
Zealand. Auckland Institute & Museum has about 7-boxes of original, handwritten Busby documents in their substantial collection.




                                                                                                                                       67
68
The top section of this two-part picture shows part of an Article II, rough draft of the Treaty of Waitangi, produced during the
day by British Resident, James Busby on the 3rd of February 1840. By that evening he was in attendance at an onshore
meeting at Kororareka with Hobson and others to discuss the final wording of the treaty, such that the final English draft
could be composed.
The lower section of the picture shows the handwriting found of the Littlewood Treaty, which is identified as that of British
Resident, James Busby. This second section was written on the 4th of February or one day after Busby wrote the rough draft
wording of the upper section. Busby had forgotten to mention the British settlers in his 3rd of February drafting attempts, but
this mistake was rectified a day later and the text changed to read, „to the chiefs and tribes and to all the people of New
Zealand‟…just as Article II of the Maori version reads.

At the National Archives in 1992, the process of identifying the author of the Littlewood Treaty should have been about as simple as
walking, document in hand, into the Constitution Room vault. Most of the rough, treaty draft notes‟ originals are on display there, with
exception to one at Auckland Institute & Museum. Expert comparative analysis was all that was needed.

Every Treaty expert knew that there were, plausibly, only three choices of authors for the English drafts of the treaty. These were
William Hobson, James Stuart Freeman and James Busby. Unless there had been some, unknown radical departure from the
unfolding process and our recorded history is wrong, then James Busby should have written the final draft. His own testimony on the
matter, in recalling the concluding events of treaty drafting on the last day, stated that he had been the author of the document sent to
Reverend Williams for translation.

Why, therefore, did Minister of Internal Affairs, Graham Lee state that „specialists from the National Archives and elsewhere now
believed they were in for „a long haul‟ in determining who had written the draft on paper with an 1833 watermark‟?

In retrospect and given the simplicity of the research problem, the everywhere present availability of high quality original documents
pertinent to the investigation, access to New Zealand‟s top historians and handwriting experts lurking in every nook and cranny within
the building, Graham Lee‟s statement shows itself to be quite ridiculous.

Despite an expectant and long-suffering public waiting with the “patience of Job” for over 12-years for basic answers to simple
questions, their public servant experts at „the National Archives and elsewhere‟ remain forever silent on the subject.


Out of sight - out of mind.



                                                                                                                                        69
In the years that followed the lodging of the Littlewood Treaty at the National Archives, members of the Littlewood family who were
visiting Wellington decided to go and view the long-held family heirloom, but were disappointed not to find it on display. One family
member, who inquired after the document to Archives‟ staff, was told that they had „never received any such item into their
collection‟.

This initiated a direct approach by John Littlewood, who had become very concerned about both the safety and public accessibility of
the historic document. He had been given assurances when he deposited the Littlewood Treaty that it would be professionally analysed
and later displayed for public scrutiny. Although it had been on display, briefly, for a few weeks or months after it was first deposited
in 1992, it then disappeared completely, never to be seen again for almost a decade.

On the 21st of September 2000, an increasingly concerned John Littlewood went to the National Archives and inquired after the
document. Historian, Dr. Hank Driessen, as well as Jonathan London, Head of Preservation Services, couldn‟t, initially, locate it, but
the old sheet was finally found the next day and John Littlewood was photographed holding it. At the time, he was promised a copy of
the photo when it was developed, but it was never sent. He was also told that the Littlewood Treaty would go on display in the
Constitution room after paper restoration work was completed.

It‟s difficult to know how much further restoration work was necessary, as most seems to have been completed in 1989 by the
Auckland Institute & Museum personnel. Some additional removal of the defacing cellophane-tape marks on the paper folds appears
to have been undertaken within Preservation Services at the National Archives, Wellington. All preservation work, however, seems to
have been completed shortly after the National Archives first acquired the document.

Over a year later, in 2001, when it was reported to John that the document was still not on display, he wrote his concerns in a letter to
Dr. Hank Driessen on October 8th, 2001. When no response was forthcoming, John Littlewood went to M.P. George Hawkins on the
5th of November 2001 to lodge a complaint and to express his concerns about the safety and public availability of the document. The
Hon. George Hawkins, subsequently, conveyed John‟s complaint to the Member of Parliament who held the portfolio for Archives,
the Hon. Marion Hobbs. She wrote back to the Hon. George Hawkins on the 12th of December 2001 to assure him that the Littlewood
Treaty document had, finally and belatedly, been put on display in the Constitution Room of the National Archives.

Adding insult to injury, only the front page of the Littlewood Treaty sheet, to this very day, can be viewed by the public,
although it would be a very simple matter to display a photographic facsimile of the second page and there is ample room in the glass
case to do so. Treaty document researchers are, as a consequence, unable to see that the old sheet bears the date of the 4th of
February 1840 and, therefore, had been written before there was any Maori version of the Treaty of Waitangi in existence. This



                                                                                                                                       70
all-important date also meant that a final English draft had been written one day after the officially accepted and much promoted draft
wording of the 3rd of February 1840.

Moreover, researchers are unable to read the very important text of Article II, which says:

„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‟.

The public are, in addition, not informed that the Littlewood Treaty, on display before their eyes, was, in the year 2000, identified by
Dr. Phil Parkinson to be in the handwriting of British Resident, James Busby.

                         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

                                                               Chapter 3

               THE PEDIGREE OF THE TREATY DOCUMENT FOUND BY THE LITTLEWOOD FAMILY

Every newly found historical document has to have a plausible pedigree to establish its authenticity beyond reasonable doubt. In the
case of the Treaty of Waitangi document, found amidst old family papers of the Littlewood family of Pukekohe, South Auckland in
1989, the pedigree proves to be impeccable.

One of the family forebears was Henry Littlewood, whose date of birth can be assumed to be the 25th of May, 1812, in the town of
Old Swindon, Worchester, England. This is the registered date of Henry‟s christening and it was, apparently, the custom of the church
recorders to write the true birth date into the register at the time of a child‟s christening. Henry‟s parents were Benjamin Littlewood
and Esther Badger, who appear to have been very well to do and financially blessed estate owners. There were 7 children born to
Esther Littlewood and Henry was the youngest.
As a young adventurous man in his twenties, Henry was, apparently, already in Australia and for the next few years would commute
between New Zealand and Australia on several occasions. The date of his first passage from England to Australia is unknown. In
answer to enquiries concerning Henry Littlewood, Dr. Phil Parkinson of the National Library wrote on 24/12/03:




                                                                                                                                       71
„You also expressed interest in the associations of Henry Littlewood. Very little is known of him. He appears to have been at
the Bay of Islands in 1838. The situation in which he came to prominence was as defence counsel for Maketu during his trial
for murder in 1842 (Hodder to Littlewood, 14 September 1992 in the Littlewood file at Archives New Zealand, 4/1/189). The
Alexander Turnbull Library has no further information about him, apart from a notice of his death, which occurred at
Auckland on 5 September 1864, aged 52 (Australian and New Zealand Gazette no. 687 (24 December 1864) p. 415).‟

Henry Littlewood‟s great-grandson, John Littlewood has amassed the following information from his own family records or through
the endeavours of private researchers:

It would appear that Henry was in a bit of strife and cooling his heels in New Zealand by the middle of 1840, as the following article
was published in the Colonial Gazette on the 17th of June 1840. He‟d just turned 28.

„A Mr. Henry Littlewood, an attorney of Sydney had decamped to New Zealand. Reason - having cheated his creditors‟ (See
Colonial Gazette, pg. 403, Auckland Public Library).

The more traceable trail of Henry Littlewood picks up in late January 1842, when Henry and eleven other gentlemen were in
Auckland, New Zealand and obliged to present proof of their certification and competency to practice law.
On the 26th of January, 1842 a notice appeared in the official Gazette, which called upon all persons who claimed to be barristers to
appear on the 31st of January 1842 before the Chief Justice with proof of competence. The first twelve men who signed the roll
included Henry Littlewood (see Cooke ed. Portrait of a Profession, 1969, A/W. Reed, Wellington.

The New Zealand Herald and Gazette newspaper published the following article on the 5th of February 1842, under the title of
Domestic Intelligence:

„Law - On Monday the following Gentlemen attended at the office of Mr. Thomas Braithwaite, Registrar of the Supreme
Court, for the purpose of producing to the Chief Justice due proof of their respective qualifications according to the Supreme
Court Ordinance, Session 2, No. 1:- Charles Babbington Brewer, barrister; Augustus Thompson, barrister; Frederick
Whitaker, solicitor; Thomas Edward Conry, solicitor; and Henry Littlewood, solicitor, Esquires‟.

Family oral history includes a rumour passed down that Henry Littlewood was somehow involved in the signing ceremony of the
Treaty of Waitangi, but this cannot yet be substantiated by documents. Dr. Phil Parkinson of the National Library places him in the
Bay of Islands in 1838, the location where the treaty was later signed in February 1840. He was certainly in New Zealand, again, by
June of 1840, only four months after the treaty was signed and might have been present as an officiating legal solicitor, helping out

                                                                                                                                         72
during the treaty proceedings, although there‟s no known record of any such participation. Family oral history states that he retained,
in his possession, original documents related to the Treaty of Waitangi.

It would appear that he remained in New Zealand for several years from 1840 onwards, but family oral history speaks of him returning
to England for a short period, at some stage prior to 1847.

Henry Littlewood returned back to New Zealand on the ship Saghalien on the 22nd of November 1847. He was married in Auckland
on the 17th of January 1848, to Mary Hill, daughter of James Carlton Hill. The ceremony took place at St. Paul‟s Church in Auckland,
conducted by the Reverend J.F. Churton and the church records listed his profession as solicitor. Either he had met Mary Hill before
or abroad and cultivated a relationship or this was a whirlwind romance, resulting in marriage only seven weeks after returning to New
Zealand.

Henry Littlewood‟s father-in-law later purchased a large tract of land overlooking the Manukau Harbour in Auckland. James Carlton
Hill was apparently speculating on the fact that the city development would move in that direction. Because of the dangers posed to
sailing ships entering through the Manukau Heads across the treacherous and ever-shifting sand bar, the more popular port of call was
on the eastern side of the city through the wider expanse and more placid, Hauraki Gulf. The area purchased by Hill eventually
became known as the suburb of Hillsborough and James Carlton Hill, built a home there, which still stands.

Mary Littlewood (née. Hill) had five children to Henry Littlewood, including twin boys. The children were Harry, Frederick, Carlton
& Inglis (twins) and Esther, the only girl.

Henry Littlewood continued to practice law in New Zealand and his name appears on jury lists for the years 1854, 1855 and 1858. In
the New Zealander newspaper a notice appears, dated August 9th 1849 which says, „Mare strayed near Epsom Church. Reward if
returned to Littlewood, Epsom or to Mr. Hill, Auckland‟.

At some point the Littlewood‟s purchased land in Russell, near to the location where the Treaty of Waitangi was signed. The plot of
land was said, by the Littlewood family descendants, to be the same area where the main school of Russell Township was eventually
built and now stands. Henry‟s name appears on the Bay of Islands‟ Electoral Roll for the year 1857, where his profession is listed as
solicitor. During this period of time former U.S. Consul, James Reddy Clendon engaged the legal services of Henry Littlewood.

Henry Littlewood died in Auckland at the relatively young age of 52 and the cause of death was listed as “intemperance”. Death
occurred on the 5th of September 1864 (newspaper obituary) although the church register records his death as the 7th. Henry‟s funeral
was conducted from St. Mark‟s Church in Remuera and it is thought that he was buried at the Symond‟s Street Cemetery. Many of the

                                                                                                                                      73
graves of this cemetery had to be moved to alternative locations for reburial when the motorway was built over 100-years later and it
is thought that Henry‟s grave came into this relocated category. It‟s possible that his remains were removed to Chamberlain Park
Cemetery in Onehunga suburb.

A CASE OF TOO LITTLE TOO LATE

A discerning public, with its ever-present cells of deep digging research moles, can quickly ascertain facts if there is sufficient access
to information. When it came to the Littlewood Treaty document, however, the public and research community, generally, were
denied any clear samples for close scrutiny and analysis. They had to settle for some fleeting glimpses of an elusive something in a
couple of 1992 television news-clips and, beyond that, little or nothing else seems to have ever been available.

A good example of the kind of bureaucratic run-around researchers had to contend with when trying to get clear copies of the
Littlewood Treaty is found in the way that Ross Baker, historian for the One New Zealand Foundation, was treated.

John Littlewood received a letter from the National Archives dated the 24th of September 1992 in which a Mr. Michael Hodder asked
if it would be alright to supply a copy of the Littlewood Treaty, which had been requested by One New Zealand Foundation historian,
Ross Baker.

The following is Mr. Hodder‟s letter:




                                                                                                                                         74
75
This is the letter John Littlewood received from Michael Hodder, which prompted him to grant overall, general permission for
anyone requesting a copy of the Littlewood Treaty to have one supplied, to display as they wished. John‟s handwritten
notation is seen at the bottom.

John Littlewood and his extended family were very agreeable to allow copies of their document to be distributed to any and all who
requested them and wrote a general, blanket consent back to the Archives in a letter of 27/9/92. The handwritten record of John
Littlewood‟s clear response to Michael Hodder can be seen at the bottom of the National Archives‟ letter to John.

Despite leaving John Littlewood with the distinct impression that copies would be made available, on request, to any researcher asking
Archives for one, Ross Baker was refused a copy, even after John Littlewood had given his personal approval to fulfil that particular,
individual request. Mr. Baker writes with justified irritation:

„I wrote to the National Archives and requested a copy of the Littlewood document. The reply to me from the National
Archives was that, “it was too valuable and delicate to photocopy, as the process would damage it”. This is a lie, as several
photocopies were made, by Archives, in 1992 for the owners and distributed to members of the Littlewood family. In 2003
researcher, Martin Doutré, was allowed by John Littlewood to make his own photocopies of the document directly from one
issued to the family by the National Archives in 1992‟.

Even though the National Archives had both hard-copy and electronic files of the Littlewood Treaty on hand and didn‟t need to
disturb the original, they deliberately and unreasonably fobbed Ross Baker off with this lame excuse. Mr. Baker was left with no other
option available to him than to try and source a copy directly from the Littlewood‟s.

An Auckland member of the One New Zealand Foundation, therefore, approached John Littlewood directly with the request and John
took time out to have a duplicate made from the first-generation one supplied to him by Archives in 1992. By this means, Rotorua
based, Mr. Baker was able to acquire a sufficiently good copy for research purposes.

After careful analysis he quickly came to the conclusion that this document was, indeed, the long sought after, final English draft of
the Treaty of Waitangi and stated these conclusions in his 1992 book, He Iwi Tahi Tatou. It is also interesting to note that this book
was sent to all MPs. In total, 6000 books were distributed throughout NZ, including to libraries and government departments. Mr.
Baker repeated his call for a full investigation into the significance of the Littlewood Treaty in his 1998 book, From Treaty to
Conspiracy.



                                                                                                                                         76
It would appear that between 1992 until the end of 2003, there were very few, if any, copies of the Littlewood Treaty made available
to the public from sources inside the National Archives. Because of silence emanating from that quarter on any matters arising out of
the Littlewood Treaty, the 1989 discovery finally lapsed from public memory. It seems doubtful that anyone, other than John
Littlewood and a few die-hard stalwarts like Ross Baker, retained more than vague recollections of some treaty related news incident
back in the early 90‟s. For most of us, whatever it was, way-back-when, the interminable silence had taken effect and the all-too-brief
Littlewood Treaty splash across the headlines had long-since receded from memory.

An innocent and almost unnoticed, throwaway statement appeared in an obscure, end-of-the-year 2000, in-house Archives publication,
which blandly said:

„Recently Phil Parkinson, a researcher on the treaty, has examined the Littlewood Treaty and come to the conclusion that it is
in the handwriting of James Busby, the British Resident and Hobson‟s secretary‟.

Excuse me, but what was that you just said about



James Busby???




                                                                                                                                     77
78
So there you have it after years of waiting with bated breath. No brass bands and baton-twirling majorettes; no pomp and
circumstance or shouting from the rooftops. Just a thin throw away statement in a thin, throw away, Archives newsletter,
circulated to a reasonably insulated readership.

                                                                   Next

                         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

                                                                Chapter 4

                    PROFESSIONAL APATHY & MEDIOCRITY ...OR SOMETHING MORE SINISTER?

Whereas the fact that James Busby was the author of the Littlewood Treaty must have been known or at least suspected by some
leading historians, even before the document was deposited with the National Archives in 1992, this morsel of highly significant
information was withheld from the public.

To state that the leading treaty historians and document experts didn‟t arrive at this conclusion by 1989 or 1992 is difficult to accept.

In 1989 Beryl Needham was promised that handwriting experts at Auckland Institute and Museum would attempt to identify
the author of the document. The receiving officer there, Mr. Thwaite, had even speculated over the counter that William Hobson
might have penned it.

The National Archives‟ spokespeople announced publicly in 1992 that they were going to subject the Littlewood Treaty to
handwriting analysis to determine its author. If the document was, indeed, the final English lost draft, then the first choice of
handwriting needing to be looked at and compared was that of James Busby.

So, didn‟t even one of our leading experts bother to take 5-minutes out of their day in September 1992 to check and see if Busby wrote
the Littlewood Treaty? After publicly speculating about the document qualifying as the long sought after, final draft of the 4th of
February 1840, didn‟t someone carry it into the Constitution Room and lay it side-by-side with the 3rd of February, last surviving,
English treaty draft for handwriting comparison?


                                                                                                                                            79
In the list of long lost documents, there was no other one that could, conceivably, be of greater importance to New Zealand historians
or legislators than this one. Everyone had wanted to find this particular document for over 150-years, when it finally turned up on the
doorstep of the National Archives of New Zealand in 1992.

How could the Auckland Institute & Museum historians not have known, in 1989, that the Littlewood Treaty document was in the
handwriting of James Busby?
At Auckland Institute & Museum Library there are large quantities of Busby related material, to the order of about 7-boxes of his
handwritten letters and reports. Also there‟s one of Busby‟s pristine condition, rough drafts of the Treaty of Waitangi languishing
there. The draft in question is, as expected, written on J & J Town Turkey Mill 1838 watermarked paper, just like Busby‟s later,
corrected draft of the same day (3rd of February 1840), which is found amongst the 12-pages of rough draft notes in the collection of
the National Archives.

A mere 5-minute comparison of handwriting, between the treaty draft on file at the Museum and the Littlewood Treaty, should have
been all that was required by a handwriting expert to ascertain, or at least strongly suspect, that the same author penned both
documents.

By the time the year 1992 rolled around, major new legislation had been put in place related to what the treaty, supposedly, said or
meant. The process had, effectively, started in 1975 with the Treaty of Waitangi Act, which was wholly based upon Busby‟s Articles
of February 3rd 1840. The Preamble of the treaty was discarded shortly after Geoffrey Palmer introduced his, “Five Legal
Principles”, which allowed for radical reinterpretation of the treaty. The Preamble began to quickly slip from view and didn‟t feature
in the Lange government‟s publication “Crown Proposals for the Settlement of Treaty Claims”. It was, subsequently, not included on
the etched glass panels displaying the treaty at Te Papa Museum. This loss of our treaty Preamble fomented an outcry from the
committee set up to report on submissions related to Crown Proposals for the Settlement of Treaty Claims, who wrote:
„This committee is shocked to read that Appendix 1 excludes the Preamble to the Treaty of Waitangi. Insofar as the Treaty of
Waitangi is this country‟s founding document, the Preamble is its “essence”. The Preamble is an integral part of the Treaty,
which should not be omitted, as it outlines the Crown‟s intentions‟.

If ever we needed to locate the final English draft of the treaty, in haste, it was now!

So, how hard was it, really, to determine if the Littlewood Treaty was in Busby‟s handwriting?




                                                                                                                                      80
The top section shows part of Article I of the Littlewood Treaty, dated 4th of February 1840 and the bottom section shows

                                                                                                                            81
Article I from Busby‟s first attempt, rough draft of the 3rd of February 1840, held at Auckland Institute & Museum. An
appended note with the 3rd of February draft says:

„draft of the Articles of a Treaty with the native chiefs submitted to Capt. Hobson 3rd Feby 1840‟.

The appended note is in Busby‟s handwriting. It‟s evident that this 3rd of February sheet never actually went to Hobson, but that the
somewhat more refined or improved copy, which is now found amongst the 12-pages of rough draft treaty notes held at the National
Archives, is what was „submitted‟.

This 3rd of February copy, shown above, certainly preceded the version in the National Archives‟ collection, as this one has many
more corrections and crossed out words that don‟t appear in the somewhat-improved draft that followed it. The Littlewood Treaty of
the 4th of February represents the natural progression, development and refinement of Busby‟s two earlier attempts at writing a treaty
on the 3rd of February 1840.

The fact that the final English draft went missing sometime in early 1840 has caused ongoing problems and vexations, ever since, in
determining the precise English wording of the Treaty of Waitangi. It stretches credibility to the extreme to suggest that, in 1992, the
Littlewood Treaty document was simply shoved in a drawer upon receipt of it by the National Archives and forgotten about thereafter.
Such a conclusion runs contrary to a statement by National Archives‟ Chief Archivist, Kathryn Patterson, who, in her letter to John
Littlewood of the 12th of October 1992, stated the following:
„Given the inability of historians to recognise the handwriting it may be that the identity of the writer of the document will
never be known. It is clearly not by Henry Littlewood. You mentioned an example of what you thought was very likely his
handwriting in the family Bible. We have found examples here and have found an example of his signatures in an original roll
of barristers and solicitors held by the Auckland District Law Society‟.

At the time of Kathryn Patterson‟s letter to John Littlewood the National Archives had held the Littlewood Treaty original for almost
three months and, prior to that, the Auckland Institute & Museum had held the document for almost an entire year. Experts in both
establishments, along with Dr. Claudia Orange, had, privately or publicly, speculated that the document could be the final English, lost
draft of the treaty. Obviously some investigative work was being undertaken between July and October 1992 and, as a result of that
probe, 1840‟s solicitor, Henry Littlewood, had been eliminated as the possible author.

But, realistically, Henry Littlewood was well down the list of prime candidates, as the final English treaty draft was known to have
been penned by James Busby. He had to qualify, far and away, as the frontrunner in any investigation of handwriting. Logically, it is
beyond question that expert focus would have been directed, first and foremost, at Busby.

                                                                                                                                        82
We‟re led to believe that the author of the Littlewood Treaty remained undetermined until New Zealand‟s leading handwriting expert
of particular documents from the early colonial era, Dr. Phil Parkinson, happened upon a copy in the year 2000 and correctly, at a
glance, identified its author as James Busby. Even after that dynamic but muted revelation was partially circulated in-house at the
National Archives, there was still no stirring and mounting enthusiasm amongst the archives‟ historians. Like old lethargic swamp
turtles of The Never Ending Story, „they didn‟t care… and what‟s worse…they didn‟t care that they didn‟t care‟.

DRAWN INTO THE FRAY

I got involved with the Littlewood Treaty saga quite by chance. For many years I have been perplexed by the erosion of our history by
recent era social engineers, who seem intent upon radically changing or discounting it. Many reliable items, recorded in our older
history books, which were once common knowledge to my generation, have been lately shelved, denied or slandered into oblivion as
Euro- centric. Compelling evidence of earlier human occupation, observations by the first maritime explorers or age-old oral traditions
of the learned Maori Kaumatuas or Kuias have been deliberately pushed into the background as unmentionables to make way for a
new, approved plastic history. There seems to be a contrived programme of blanket amnesia enveloping, mesmerising and inducing us
to forget recorded regional anomalies or the once frequent mention of the pre-Maori inhabitants from our county‟s more remote
epochs. Our history seems to be perpetually locked into a limited scope time warp from which there is little hope of escape.

The older Maori people of my generation give me a wry smile and knowing look when I mention our, now, forbidden history, once
openly discussed in my youth. Oftimes they proffer additional snippets that add yet more to my knowledge of our censored past.
Unfortunately, younger Maori, many of whom have gained their knowledge of history from corporate kaumatuas, with a degree in
business management or law, tend to get ruffled at some of the, so-called, culturally insensitive topics I raise or keep alive.
My advice to them is to go and talk to the learned old elders, who will tell them exactly what I‟m telling them and, probably,
considerably more.

In October 2003 a very irate and disgruntled correspondent named Hemi wrote scathing commentary within my archaeological
discussion forum and challenged me to „tell the people about the Treaty of Waitangi‟. I recall being patently ungrateful to Hemi for
inviting me to broach that horrible subject, which in recent years has been so layered with legalese as to be rendered virtually
incomprehensible.

In the back of my mind there was a vague, almost forgotten recollection of something I‟d seen on the T.V. news in the early 90‟s
…something about a mysterious copy of the Treaty of Waitangi that had turned up amidst private family papers, as well as follow-on
speculation that this could be the long sought after, lost final English draft of the treaty.



                                                                                                                                    83
In my ensuing investigation, I found a small, almost unreadable reprint of the Littlewood treaty document, in question, within Ross
Baker‟s book, From Treaty To Conspiracy and was able to read a transcript of what the Littlewood Treaty said, for the first time. I
had to agree with his analysis that this English version was the closest one in existence to back-translations of the Maori Tiriti O
Waitangi.

On October 13th, 2004, while advancing my research and in an attempt to gain a fully legible copy of the Littlewood Treaty, I simply
consulted the telephone book and located John Littlewood on my first try. He, very graciously, agreed to converse with me on the
subject and filled me in on details of the 1989 discovery. When I said I‟d like to get a copy of the Littlewood Treaty document, John
mentioned that he‟d have to search a bit to find where he‟d left his files on the subject. So much time had elapsed, with no further
interest shown by the National Archives, that John rarely thought about the Littlewood Treaty these days. Because of the eternal
silence and inaction on the part of the authorities to provide the heretofore-promised answers about the old family document, John
Littlewood had long since given up waiting and had reverted to simply getting on with life.

On the 15th of October 2003 I went to John and Barbara Littlewood‟s home and had a lengthy interview with them. John kindly
supplied me with the first generation copy of the Littlewood Treaty that he‟d been given by the National Archives in 1992 after he‟d
handed over the original. This I took to Reprographics Ltd and had quality copies made, along with a high resolution CD of the digital
image. Upon returning John‟s original the next day, he reciprocated by giving me an additional wad of archival correspondence,
newspaper clippings and research documents about his great grandfather, Henry Littlewood. I returned to Reprographics and had
quality reproductions of these documents made also.

Over the course of a year I was to return several times to interview the Littlewood‟s or had many telephone conversations with John to
clarify small points. Thankfully, he is a meticulous record keeper and has filed away all Littlewood Treaty related correspondence to
or from the Archives. Since 1989 he has kept diary records of all events stemming from the discovery and his ongoing attempts to
have it professionally assessed.

Later, while searching deeper into the significance of the document, I discovered the National Archives‟ in-house newsletter,
circulated to a very limited readership, which all-too-casually mentioned how Dr. Phil Parkinson had identified the author of the
Littlewood Treaty to be British Resident, James Busby. I was absolutely astounded that such a dynamic revelation had not been
taken up by the media, as Parkinson‟s find pointed conclusively to the Littlewood Treaty being the authentic, long lost final English
draft of the Treaty of Waitangi.

I created a website article on the subject and injected into the public arena as much as I knew at the time. This information was picked
up by Ian Wishart, Editor of Investigate Magazine, who subsequently produced an article from the website material for his December

                                                                                                                                        84
03-January 04 issue. I‟d also given a short talk on the subject at M.P. Ken Shirley‟s Tamaki conference on the 19th of November 2003
and had handed a CD, accompanied by printed documents, to Mr. Shirley. He promised he would raise the matter in Parliament and
inform the Hon. Don Brash about this material.

In January 2004 Allan Titford, dispossessed farmer, also told the Hon. John Carter about the Littlewood Treaty, and Mr. Carter said
he‟d inform Dr. Brash of the find and its possible implications.

In late January 2004 Dr. Brash gave his very memorable Orewa speech, calling for equality for all the people of New Zealand. In
essence he was simply paraphrasing Article II of both Te Tiriti O Waitangi and its counterpart English version, the Littlewood Treaty.

I surmised, at the time, that Dr. Brash and his research team had weighed the published evidence in the balance and had concluded that
the Littlewood Treaty was probably the authentic, final English draft wording from which the Maori version was derived. The content
of Dr. Brash‟s Orewa speech was unprecedented, with suggestions unheard for 3-decades and, nowadays, never vocalised quite so
defiantly and confidently by any political party.

Like all the rest of us, Dr. Brash was bound by laws that exist on the books or enshrined by treaty and to suggest that all New
Zealanders were actually EQUAL under the law, with no special privileges or rights accorded to Maori, almost represented the
ultimate heresy. This was either a very informed speech that could be backed up by unassailable points of law or it was a precarious,
foolhardy course, leading to Dr. Brash‟s political suicide. He touched a harmonious chord with the majority of New Zealanders, who
backed him to the hilt, much to the chagrin of Prime Minister, Helen Clark.

I was convinced that Brash had an ace up his sleeve and that ace was the Littlewood Treaty, although Dr. Brash would, undoubtedly,
deny that vehemently. It struck me as odd that in the two months of intensive verbal carnage that followed, with parliamentarians or
the public venting their spleens and pent-up rage at what the grievance industry had done to our country, no one seemed to challenge
Dr. Brash on purely legal grounds.

Although there was plenty of mud slinging and accusations of racism or Maori bashing, directed at Dr. Brash, no one wished to
seriously address the issue of special customary rights being guaranteed to Maori in Article II of the Treaty of Waitangi, to the
exclusion of all other New Zealanders. Why were the legal eagles of the grievance industry so reluctant to go there? Could it be that
they didn‟t want to open a Pandora‟s box for themselves?

SO, JUST HOW IMPORTANT COULD THIS “LITTLEWOOD TREATY” PIECE OF PAPER BE?


                                                                                                                                        85
In the year 2000, shortly before paramount Nga-Puhi Maori Chief, Graham Rankin passed away he had a series of discussions
concerning Northern New Zealand history with dispossessed farmer, Allan Titford. One point that Mr. Rankin made was that the
official English text of the Treaty of Waitangi is radically different from the Maori version, in both wording and meaning. When Allan
Titford showed him a photocopy of the Littlewood Treaty, accompanied by a legible read-out text supplied by ONZF historian, Ross
Baker, Mr. Rankin commented that the wording was exactly the same as the Maori version.

It has always been a mystery to our treaty scholars that the two versions, Maori and the official English, are so radically different,
especially in the view of the fact that the translators, Reverend Henry Williams and his son Edward, were such expert linguists in the
Maori tongue. Henry Williams had been a hard working missionary stalwart in New Zealand for 17-years when he undertook the
translation. His 21-year old son Edward, who had been virtually raised in a Maori community, was considered to be a, „scholar par
excellence in the Nga Puhi dialect‟ (See T.L. Buick, 1914, The Treaty of Waitangi, pg. 113).

The frustration of some historians over this factor of the marked differences between the two texts is touched upon by D.F. McKenzie,
who wrote:
„...it is impossible to regard the Maori version [of the treaty] as quite complete, although it carries the highest authority, nor
the English ones as authoritative, although they are far more explicit. Like many dramatic texts, each has been born, here
maimed and deformed, on the pressures of context‟ (see Hobson...Governor of New Zealand 1840-1842, by Paul Moon, pg. 109;
quote by D.F. McKenzie).

Today‟s official English version has words like Kingdom, Favour, Emigration, Europe, Functionary, Pre-emption, Ireland,
Australia, Forest and Fisheries in it, which are conspicuous by their absence in the Maori version. It also makes no provision for any
one other than Maori… and the rights of the tribe of Queen Victoria (Ngati Wikitoria) go unmentioned.

The Maori version, by consequence, provides for the rights of, „the chiefs and the tribes and all the people of New Zealand‟ ……
„ki nga Rangitira ki nga hapu - ki nga tangata katoa o Nu Tirani‟, (Article II). Back translations of the Maori text since 1840 have
always included, „and all the people of New Zealand‟.

Captain William Hobson travelled half way around the world with a commission from Queen Victoria to secure a treaty with the
Maori chiefs of New Zealand. Maori, who had lost upward of 60,000 people in intertribal fighting during the previous 20 years of
musket wars had, since 1837 especially, petitioned the British Government to come and govern New Zealand. For the British to agree
to do so, they required the chiefs to cede full sovereignty, forever, to Queen Victoria; that all such ceded regions or territories become
British soil and that all the people of New Zealand (Maoris and settlers alike) become British subjects, with equal rights under one law
and one flag.

                                                                                                                                        86
The chiefs, at the time, were also worried about the French ambitions to annex New Zealand 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, pg. 281- 282, memoirs of Rev. John Warren).

The main (present day) problems related to treaty interpretation are borne out of the wording of Article II in the officially recognised,
3rd of February, rough draft English version that we use, which states that the rights guaranteed under the treaty are only for:
“…the Chiefs and Tribes of New Zealand and to the respective families and individuals thereof”.

But that‟s not what the Maori version says:
“ki nga Rangatira ki nga hapu-ki nga tangata katoa o Nu Tirani…”[which means]… “…to the Chiefs, the Hapus [tribes or
families] and all the people of New Zealand…” (Translation from the Original Maori by, Mr. T. E. Young, Native
Department…1869).

Which is what the Littlewood Treaty says:
“…to the chiefs and the tribes and to all the people of New Zealand…”

Which is what James Reddy Clendon‟s 20th of February 1840 despatch No. 6 to the U.S. Secretary of State says:
“…to the chiefs and the tribes and to all the people of New Zealand…”

Which is what Commodore Charles Wilkes‟ wrote into the U.S.S. Vincennes‟ letter book and, subsequently, sent in his April 5th 1840
despatch No. 64 to the U.S. Secretary of State:
“…to the chiefs and the tribes and to all the people of New Zealand…”

Which is what Gordon Brown‟s back-translation, found amongst the Clendon House Papers, says:
“…to all the tribes, chiefs and all men in New Zealand…”

Which is what a very early back-translation by an unknown author (found in the Clendon House Papers) says:
“…to the chiefs, to the tribes, to all the people of New Zealand…”

Which is what J. Noble Coleman wrote in, A Memoir of the Rev. Richard Davis, 1865 pp. 455-56:
“to the chiefs, the tribes, and all the people of New Zealand…”




                                                                                                                                        87
Which is what Prof. Hugh Kawhura‟s modern translation says:
“…the chiefs, the subtribes and all the people of New Zealand…”

Treaty historian, Dr. Claudia Orange, echo‟s a known fact, long-since acknowledged by experts that:
„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‟.

So, a mistaken English version, based upon an early draft of the 3rd of February 1840, rather than the final draft of the 4th of
February 1840, is being used to justify dubious items like: Principles of Settlement, Customary Rights, Concepts of Partnership,
etc, etc.

In recent years our treaty has been transformed into something akin to a chameleon, which can change its tone to blend in and exploit
any new surrounding environment. Our treaty is now called a “living document” and can mean anything that self-serving
manipulators wish it to mean to suit the occasion.
Vested interests seem cognisant of the fact that a whole raft of newly clipped on alter-treaty based appendages would become null and
void with the finding of Hobson‟s final English draft. All of the lucrative, interpretive legalese nonsense that has built up around the
treaty stands seriously threatened.

When Lieutenant Governor William Hobson shook hands with each signatory chief at Waitangi and declared, „He iwi tahi tatou‟ (we
are now one people), perhaps that was what he actually meant?
The rights enshrined within the Maori Tiriti O Waitangi are clearly for “all the people of New Zealand”, altogether and not for just a
select few.

Unfortunately, the Maori version of the treaty is never used in the creation and implementation of government policy. Nowadays it‟s
there only to serve as a visual prop, wherein the very photogenic, irregularly shaped parchment with missing text (rat eaten), is
traditionally displayed alongside the, largely, 3rd of February 1840 composite English text.
Uninformed people naturally assume that what‟s on the parchment must translate to the English text shown alongside, but it doesn‟t.

WHY WAS THERE EVER ANY CONFUSION ABOUT THE TREATY WORDING?

It is a well-known fact in ages-old international law that when two language versions of a treaty or agreement exist, the version in the
native language of the indigenous population carries the most authority. We have something called, Te Tiriti O Waitangi, of which
Lieutenant Governor Hobson said:

                                                                                                                                       88
„The treaty, which forms the basis of my proceedings, was signed at Waitangi, on 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 [1835]. This
instrument I consider to be de facto the treaty, and all the 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).

The „instrument‟ that Hobson is referring to here is the all-Maori treaty wording, which formed the only [de facto] Treaty of
Waitangi. Anything that did not comply with this wording, in this language, was not the treaty. Any and all of the English versions
were merely drafts leading up to the creation of the Maori treaty or were back-translations of the same.

The only English text that could carry any perceived authority was the final draft from which the Maori version was translated. Even
at that, the final draft was merely to show what the English authors intended and the meaning they placed on the Maori words. It was
never the intention of Hobson that any English version of the treaty be proffered to Maori chiefs for signing. Without exception, all
documents officially sent out by the government and earmarked for signing at treaty assemblies by the chiefs were carefully prepared,
handwritten texts, solely in the Maori language. Much more on this as we proceed!

After Hobson had completed the laborious and difficult process of creating an English draft from which to translate his Tiriti O
Waitangi, he seemed utterly disinterested in the English text thereafter. He printed an official Maori text, but never an official English
one. As far as he was concerned, the Treaty of Waitangi compact or contact was a definitive and solitary text in the Maori language.
Despite this, anyone wishing to locate the final draft English text from which the Maori one was derived, has been able to do so since
February 1840, as more than one copy existed, permanently, in available public records since that time. The American archives are in
possession of three such copies and the newly found Littlewood Treaty is a fourth one.

There was never any real difficulty in ascertaining what the treaty said, or in grasping its concepts, as the equal rights of all New
Zealanders, altogether, are enshrined within the Maori Tiriti O Waitangi.




                                                                                                                                        89
90
The only “de facto” Treaty of Waitangi is a text in Maori. If any confusion arises in interpreting the meaning of its clauses,
then clarification can be found in consulting Hobson‟s final English draft text. By this means, one can fathom the intent of the
authors.

                                                              Chapter 5a

                                                GETTING THE WORDING RIGHT

Unless one views, stage-by-stage, the developing drafts, leading up to the final English draft wording, one can have no appreciation of
the difficulties encountered by Hobson and other writers of the treaty. Twelve pages of rough draft notes, full of deletions, additions or
rejected ideas preceding the final draft, have survived in the collection of the New Zealand National Archives. In addition to this batch
of rough notes, there are 4-pages of Busby‟s first drafting attempt, now found in the collection of Auckland Institute & Museum. This
is what James Busby said about the drafting of the treaty:

„Though my official character [British Resident or Consul] terminated on the arrival of Captain Hobson, I did not the less
consider it to be my duty to aid him with my experience and influence; and though I afterwards declined his invitation to join
his Government, yet, till the Treaty was accomplished, our relations were of the most unreserved and confidential character ...
When it became necessary to draw the Treaty, Captain Hobson was so unwell as to be unable to leave the ship. He sent the
gentleman who was appointed Colonial Treasurer, and the Chief Clerk, with some notes, which they had put together as the
basis of the Treaty, to ask my advice respecting them. I stated that I should not consider the propositions contained in those
notes as calculated to accomplish the object, but offered to prepare the draft of a Treaty for Captain Hobson‟s consideration.
To this they replied that that was precisely what Captain Hobson desired. The draft of the Treaty prepared by me was
adopted by Captain Hobson without any other alteration than a transposition of certain sentences, which did not in any degree
affect the sense‟ (see Appendix to Journals, July 1861, E. No. 2, page 67).

Historians haven‟t been very kind to James Busby for claiming that his draft was adopted, „without any other alteration than a
transposition of certain sentences, which did not in any degree affect the sense‟. If one reviews Busby‟s 3rd of February draft,
which is now considered to be the official English wording of the treaty, his statement proves to be sheer nonsense. If, however, we
view Busby‟s statement from the standpoint of the recently found Littlewood Treaty wording, which we are told by our leading
handwriting expert was penned by Busby, and which bears the date of the 4th of February 1840, then not too much fault can be
found in Busby‟s recollection of events.



                                                                                                                                       91
Perhaps Busby is minimising the contribution of others by not acknowledging that he was, to a large degree, acting only as the scribe
or secretary in the concluding stages of treaty composition. Perhaps he is not acknowledging that his earlier drafting attempt had been
radically modified during intensive, expert consultation on the evening of the 3rd and morning of the 4th of February 1840.
Alternatively, he may well have been the primary author, editor and advisor in the last drafting session and, perhaps, could
legitimately lay claim to the final draft being, substantially, his own creation, based upon his own inventiveness and ideas.

On the 2nd & 3rd of February, Busby‟s made a concerted effort to expand upon some scant suggestions for treaty Articles, first
appearing in the writings of Freeman. Hobson and his secretary were floundering and couldn‟t seem to move much beyond two
versions of Preambles. Busby, when he took over writing the treaty, launched straight into completing Articles I, II, & III. In the
course of a day or so he produced a considerable amount of text, much of which was later discarded as nonessential. The main body of
his writing, made up of fleshed out Articles, was used as inspiration for the final draft of the 4th of February 1840, albeit severely
edited, simplified and stripped of pretentious content. Busby had also forgotten to mention the settlers in his 3rd of February 1840
draft notes. This serious omission in Article II was later picked up by Hobson or other advisors and rectified. Busby‟s efforts, in
giving the stalled treaty writing programme some much needed impetus, had been outstanding.

We now have Hobson and Busby‟s final draft text back in the public arena, which mirrors the yet latter Maori version in perfect
eloquence and balance, thus lending considerable credence to Busby‟s July 1861 memory of events. His final draft was certainly
accepted, „without any other alteration than a transposition of certain sentences [in the Maori version], which did not in any
degree affect the sense‟. In Hobson‟s view, a central component of the treaty was to secure full rights for the settlers, equal to those
of the Maori population. In an early rough notes Preamble he wrote:

„Her Majesty therefore being desirous to establish a settled form of 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…‟

Although these first concepts or ideas were later refined and simplified, they show that Hobson‟s focus was in securing rights for
everyone, whether settlers or Maori residents and creating an egalitarian society under the mantel of British law.

Let‟s now look at all of the rough draft notes that led up to the final English draft. It will become very clear that there is no single body
of text within these 16-pages that could, by any stretch of the imagination, be called a final draft. One must remember that Reverend
Henry Williams and his son Edward Marsh Williams were only the translators and not the legislators. It was obligatory that they
receive a complete, clearly set out and concisely worded final draft to work from, which was free from confusing deletions or
additions or any ambiguity. It couldn‟t be a case of Hobson saying, „Sorry Henry, but me and the boys got into a barrel of ship‟s

                                                                                                                                           92
rum last night and didn‟t quite get the treaty text tidied up as planned…but here, take this jumble of rough notes and try to
make some sense out of them…whatever you come up with will be fine, I‟m sure‟.

Hobson had come halfway around the world to accomplish his commission from Queen Victoria. There would not have been any last
minute oversights that jeopardised his mission and the translators would have received a fully completed “final draft”. Hobson owed
them that much and, as a professional, he delivered.

The Littlewood Treaty wording is the only body of text in existence that qualifies as the final English draft of the Treaty of Waitangi.
It is the natural extension and further development of Busby‟s earlier work of the 3rd of February 1840 or Hobson and Freeman‟s
rough notes that preceded Busby‟s participation.

THE 16-PAGES OF ROUGH DRAFT NOTES & THE FINAL DRAFT

Thankfully, all or most of the developing rough notes, leading to the creation of the treaty, have survived. The majority of these (12-
pages) remained in the records of the Colonial Secretary and are now housed in the collection of the National Archives.
An additional four pages, representing Busby‟s first attempt at writing a treaty draft, were retained amidst his personal papers. All
such documents in family custody, including his first treaty drafting attempt, were donated to the Auckland Institute & Museum.

The final English treaty draft went missing for almost 150-years, but was relocated in 1989 and is now in the collection of the National
Archives. The first Maori copy made by Reverend Williams, written on an ordinary piece of paper, was last in the possession of
Reverend Richard Taylor, but has been lost.

The following rough draft pages (spread between Chapters 5A to 5D) are:

1. The first four pages were written by William Hobson and represent little more than ideas for a Preamble. These pages were written
between the 31st of January and 1st of February 1840.

2. The second batch, consisting of four pages were written (mostly) by James Stuart Freeman, Hobson‟s secretary. They contain a
second version of a Preamble and some raw, first concepts of three Articles. They, also, were written between the 31st of January and
1st of February 1840.




                                                                                                                                          93
3. The third batch, consisting of four pages represent Busby‟s first attempt at writing Articles and an Affirmation section for a treaty.
When Hobson became ill. Busby took over all duties pertaining to writing the treaty. He accepted this assignment on the 2nd of
February 1840 and this batch was written in the afternoon and evening of the 2nd of February or the morning of the 3rd.

4. Busby was scheduled to meet with Hobson ashore at Kororareka on the evening of the 3rd of February to decide on the “final draft”
wording. The fourth batch consisting of four pages, represents a “clean copy” of Busby‟s earlier rough notes. Hobson severely edited
these notes to create the final draft, which was completed by the mid-afternoon of the 4th of February 1840.




                                                                                                                                        94
95
96
97
98
99
These four pages of rough draft notes are in the handwriting of William Hobson. They contain, mostly, ideas for a Preamble
and were written between the 31st of January and the 1st of February 1840. On the night of Saturday 1st of February, Hobson
had a violent quarrel with Captain Nias, which rendered him quite ill with pent up stress throughout the next day. This illness
made it impossible for Hobson to carry on drafting the treaty and he had to delegate the chore to James Busby.

                                                             Next

                                                         Chapter 5b




                                                                                                                            100
101
102
103
104
These four pages are, predominently, in the handwriting of James Stuart Freeman, Hobson's secretary. They were written
between the 31st of January and the 1st of February 1840 and contain a Preamble and rudimentary ideas for three Articles.
Freeman would, months later, use this Preamble (his own literary creation) in some of his "Royal Style" treaty versions,
earmarked for despatch overseas. James Busby, because of Hobson's illness, took over the responsibility of writing the treaty
by the 2nd of February 1840. He concentrated upon composing "fleshed out" Articles, as two versions of Preambles already
existed and it was necessary to address the central substance or purpose of the treaty.

                                                             Next

                                                         Chapter 5c




                                                                                                                           105
106
107
108
109
On Sunday the 2nd of February Hobson was ill and confined to his cabin aboard H.M.S. Herald. He sent a member of his
staff, George Cooper, ashore to British Resident, James Busby to ask if Busby would take over writing the treaty. Between the
evening of Sunday the 2nd of February and morning of Monday the 3rd, Busby produced this rough draft, consisting of four
pages. He didn't attempt to write a Preamble, but concentrated on producing three Articles and an Affirmation section. The
last two pages of Busby's rough draft tends to ramble on interminably and most of these ideas were never incorporated into
the final treaty. After producing these four pages, defaced by many additions, deletions and corrections, Busby wrote a clean
copy of this basic, preliminary text to show to Hobson on the evening of the 3rd of February 1840.

                                                            Next

                                                         Chapter 5d




                                                                                                                          110
111
112
113
114
These four pages show Busby's clean or rewritten copy of his "first attempt" Articles and ideas, which he took to Hobson at
Kororareka on the evening of the 3rd of February 1840. They met at Busby's two room cottage on that side of the bay and,
thoughout the evening and during the next day, Hobson, Busby and other advisors made significant changes to this rough
draft. The final draft that followed was, once again, penned by Busby and the last drafting session was conducted with Hobson
present and under his direction. The final document produced was handed, by Hobson, to Reverend Henry Williams at 4 p.m.
on the 4th of February 1840 for translation (overnight) into the Maori language.

                                                                 Next

                                                             Chapter 5E

THE ROUGH NOTES ARE, SIMPLY ROUGH NOTES. THERE‟S NO FINAL DRAFT HERE!

It must be admitted that there is no clear-cut or complete final draft amongst the 16-pages of surviving draft notes from which the
Tiriti O Waitangi could be translated.

These rough working notes and developments are too raw, with too many confusing additions or deletions for Reverend Henry
Williams to work from in creating the Maori Tiriti O Waitangi.

Hobson and his advisors had an absolute duty to provide the translators with a complete, clearly set out and concise final draft,
containing no ambiguity or confusion within the text that could lead to mistakes being made. The role of Reverend Henry Williams
was to act as TRANSLATOR. His sole duty was to convey, as closely as possible, the ideas, statements and intents of the
LEGISLATORS.

The treaty itself was based upon stringent guidelines provided by Lord Normanby of the Colonial Office, who furnished Hobson with
a 4200 word brief before Hobson left England. This brief stipulated that certain basic requirements must be met and adhered to if
Britain were to set up a colony in New Zealand. If these requirements could not be secured by treaty, then Britain would not entertain
any plans of colonisation.

Following Hobson‟s arrival in Australia, he underwent further briefings in consultation with Governor of New South Wales, Sir
George Gipps.




                                                                                                                                      115
Hobson certainly understood the concept of “duty to Queen and Country” and his exploits of fighting pirates in the West Indies had
provided the inspiration for a popular book featuring the fictional, seafaring, folk hero of the times, Tom Cringle.

This commission by Hobson to secure a treaty and, eventually, become Governor of New Zealand was to be the crowning glory that
followed a long and distinguished naval career. Hobson had visited New Zealand in 1837 as captain of H.M.S. Rattlesnake and it was
largely due to the recommendations contained in his report that enticed the British Parliament to allow a colony to be formed in the,
geographically, most distant, habitable country from the seat of British government.
To suggest that Hobson might have arrived in the country with a lacsadasical or mediocre attitude towards his assignment in behalf of
Queen Victoria belies his nature. If anything, Hobson was an overachiever, who always pushed himself very hard, often to the
detriment of his health and well-being.

Upon arrival in New Zealand on the 29th of January 1840 he set himself the ominous task of both writing a treaty and meeting with
the chiefs within the short space of one week, to present the Queen‟s proposal to them. This was the most important document Hobson
would ever write, as it was to be the foundation compact or contract upon which a colony of Britain would be built. It had to
encompass all of the themes and recommendations contained within Normanby‟s 4200-word brief, as well as those conveyed in direct
consultation with several other British authorities in England and Australia.

By scrutinising the rough notes, we are able to clearly see the difficulties that Hobson and his helpers encountered in devising, then
assembling a final treaty text. Many ideas were proposed and discarded and the 16-pages of developing rough notes contain little more
than a shadow of the final, concentrated wording that was, ultimately, decided upon.

No translator would be capable of creating the Maori Tiriti O Waitangi from those rough notes alone, as nothing is finished to a
sufficiently clear standard, wherein it is obvious what is to be included and what is to be rejected. Hobson owed Reverend Williams
nothing less than a completed “final draft”.

The Littlewood Treaty draft is the natural extension to these surviving 16-pages and qualifies as the only known final English draft,
complete in all sections.

The last 8 pages of the rough notes were written, by Busby, between the 2nd and 3rd of February 1840. The Littlewood Treaty is
dated the 4th of February 1840 and has been identified by Dr. Phil Parkinson to be in the handwriting of James Busby. Its wording
constitutes the final refinement, after considering many ideas, and the resultant text perfectly mirrors, sentence by sentence, the Maori
wording.



                                                                                                                                      116
Let‟s now add Busby‟s 4th of February final draft (the Littlewood Treaty) and see Hobson‟s finished, corrected and concise text,
refined in all sections and ready to hand to the translators.




                                                                                                                                   117
118
119
The Littlewood Treaty document (Busby's final English draft to the Treaty of Waitangi), which mirrors the text found on the
Maori Tiriti O Waitangi perfectly, sentence by sentence. It can be seen from the 16-draft pages that preceded this final draft
that nothing is sufficiently complete or organised enough within those rough notes (written between the 31st of January and
3rd of February 1840) to hand to the translators. The Littlewood Treaty (written on the 4th of February) is the only document
in the developing series that contains the completed features of Preamble, Articles I, II, III & Affirmation section.

                                                               Next

                                                             Chapter 6

                                     DID BUSBY WRITE THE LITTLEWOOD TREATY?

On the 24th of December 2003 Dr. Phil Parkinson wrote the following concerning the Littlewood Treaty document:

„When I was shown it, in September 2000, it was at once evident to me (as I told Christel McClare of Archives New Zealand, at
the time) that the Littlewood document was in the handwriting of James Busby.‟

„In your letter of 16 November to Dr Orange you expressed your amazement that nobody recognised that the scribe of the
Littlewood document was Busby, and it certainly puzzled me, also, that this point was not picked up, as far as I know, until I
pointed it out in September 2000. But there are rather few people who can now scientifically identify 19th century
handwriting. I know from my own experience with unsigned annotations on documents of the 1820s to 1850s that I have
sometimes made misattributions; it is a skill that one develops with experience. The departure of some of the senior staff with
relevant expertise at Archives New Zealand during the last decade has left a gap‟ (Excerpt of letter to Martin Doutré, 24/12/03).

A close scrutiny of Busby‟s writing style on the 3rd of February 1840 supports Dr. Parkinson‟s analysis that James Busby was the
author of the Littlewood Treaty document, bearing the date of the 4th of February 1840. Let‟s look at some comparisons:




                                                                                                                                   120
Busby‟s 3rd of February rough draft rendition of “chiefs” is shown on the left and the Littlewood Treaty rendition of the next day is
shown to the right. The 3rd of February draft was written in the quiet seclusion of his spacious Waitangi residence and he has taken
care in its execution. This example of “chiefs” (left) is taken from Busby‟s rewritten, afternoon duplicate of earlier rough notes he‟d
been working on that morning or the evening previous. Busby „submitted‟ this improved copy to Hobson in the evening of the 3rd of
February, when they met at Busby‟s two-room cottage at Kororareka to discuss, with other advisors present, what the final draft
should say. As it turns out, the final draft (the Littlewood Treaty) was not completed until the 4th of February and, in terms of
penmanship or writing finesse and style, appears to have been a little more rushed, with a somewhat lesser degree of care taken in its
execution. Perhaps Busby, who was in transit and away from the comfort of his home and writing desk, was a bit tired and dishevelled
after two or three days of intensive writing and rushing to meet a deadline. By the morning of the 5th of February, the final draft had
to be translated into the Maori language, such that it could be read before an assembly of over a thousand people at midday.




Busby had a habit of stringing words like “of-the” or “of-their” together, as seen above and this writing style is consistent in the
Littlewood Treaty (bottom), as well as his earlier work of the day before (top).




Busby‟s morning rough draft from the 3rd of February is seen to the left and his 4th of February draft is on the right. It seems quite
apparent that the same author created both documents.




                                                                                                                                         121
Busby's rendition of "Victoria" on the 3rd of February (left) is slightly more refined and sharp than the way he penned it the next day
(right). The general style, however, remains consistent.




Sunday the 2nd of February 1840, it would seem, was the day that James Busby was given the sparse, rough draft notes for the treaty
that had been produced by Hobson and Freeman in the days previous. They contained little more than Preambles and some scant,
undeveloped ideas for Articles. Hobson was now so ill that he couldn‟t carry on with the drafting effort and, therefore, delegated the
task to the British Resident, James Busby.
In his attempts to write down some preliminary ideas for Articles, James Stuart Freeman had spelled “Sovereignty” as “Sovreignty”


                                                                                                                                     122
(top) and this appears to have confused Busby later. On the 3rd of February Busby was concentrating solely on creating fleshed out
Articles for the Treaty and spelled the word correctly (bottom).

However, while reviewing Hobson's and Freeman's rough notes on the 4th of February, in order to decide on the Preamble wording,
Busby appears to have been influenced by Freeman's mistaken rendition of "Sovreignty" and used that spelling in the final draft
(examples shown below).




Inasmuch as Freeman had been educated at, prestigious, Eton Public School and Oxford University, Busby probably assumed that
Freeman was better informed as to the correct spelling. Similarly, in Busby‟s 3rd of February rough draft he used the term “cede and
yield”. This might have caused him to once misspell “ceded” as “ceided” on the 4th of February, which word appears on the final
draft document with the “i” crossed out. In the final draft Busby also tended to use Freeman‟s style of the letter “Z” when linking
together the words “New Zealand” in, what seems to be, a more rapid placement of words to paper than on the day before. It‟s
plausible to assume that Busby “knocked out” two or three of these final English draft copies, in haste, on the 4th of February.*

*Footnote: Author, Caroline Fitzgerald, who has researched and published many, formerly, unpublished letters of Henry and
Marianne Williams, states the following:
„The Treaty of Waitangi was translated into Maori with the help of his son Edward. Initially, five drafts were prepared in
English and one (only) was given to Henry‟ (see: Letters From The Bay Of Islands, The Story Of Marianne Williams, pg. 247).
Many of these letters were repatriated from England just after the First World War and are in the collection of Auckland Institute &
Museum.

                                                                 Next

                                                              Chapter 7

     DOWN-PLAYING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE “LITTLEWOOD TREATY” IN THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA



                                                                                                                                     123
With no convincing body of proof to substantiate their argument, certain historians are saying that the written date, found at the end of
the Littlewood Treaty document, is a mistake by its author, James Busby.

The mainstream media has been silent about the Littlewood Treaty since September 1992. The last word on the matter, other than
resurrection of the issue in a National Business Review article of March 2005, seemed to come from historian Claudia Orange over
twelve years previous, wherein she concluded the following in a newspaper article:
(For the full article refer back to page 12)
NZPA Wellington. N.Z. Herald, 12/9/92.
TREATY EXPERT COOL ON DRAFT FIND

„Dr. Orange said it would be difficult to establish why this draft of the treaty was written. She said it might not date from 1840
at all even though it was on old paper.

“It may date from the 1850‟s. All we know is that it is very old. The watermark of 1833 may simply indicate it is paper that
was hanging around the solicitor‟s office and was used.”

Dr. Orange warned people about placing too much importance on the find.

“This is always the case when we get an interesting find, from an historical sense it is very interesting, but we shouldn‟t get too
excited about this, especially in the political sense.”




                                                                                                                                      124
The date written on the Littlewood Treaty is positively the 4th of February 1840, the same day the final English draft was
finished and handed to Reverend Henry Williams for translation.

Dr. Claudia Orange stated that the Littlewood Treaty might not date from 1840, but that it could have been written on some old paper
hanging around a solicitor‟s office in the 1850‟s. During a period in excess of 12-years, neither she nor her colleagues have attempted
to find out if that assumption is plausible. Despite releasing a new book in September 2004, there is still no mention of the Littlewood
Treaty in her publications, even after she acted as primary expert commentator before the public, at the forefront of the issue, in 1992.
Dr. Orange hasn‟t mentioned that her colleague, Dr. Phil Parkinson, has concluded the document is in the handwriting of James
Busby. This dynamic factor alone negates the possibility of the Littlewood Treaty being a back-translation written on old paper lying
around a solicitor‟s office in 1850.

On the 1st of March 2004, historian Ross Baker wrote to Dr. Claudia Orange and asked, in part, the following question:
„At the time [1992] you stated in the newspapers you were convinced from your research that this document was just another
copy of the Maori translation by an unknown author. I am interested to know, is this still your view today?‟




                                                                                                                                      125
On the 2nd of March 2004, Dr. Orange replied:
„Ross, I have not had the time nor do I at present to research this and I would not venture to make any comment until I
have…Claudia‟.

One would think that twelve years was ample time!

What the Treaty truly is or means could have been sorted out over a decade ago if our historians had provided us with the correct, in-
depth information. “Interpretation” of the “treaty” is an utterly futile undertaking, until such time as the Littlewood document‟s
significance is scientifically addressed.
Dr. Michael Bassett states: „What you have been dealing with these last 30 years are some very inventive people stretching the
wording of the treaty so far it is falling apart because of the games that are being played with it‟ (See National Business
Review, March 2005).




                                                                                                                                    126
127
After the Littlewood Treaty emerged back into public focus in the December 2003 - January 2004 issue of Investigate
Magazine, Ian Wishart, editor and talk show host, stated on air that his media colleagues had told him there was a general
media ban on saying the words, “Littlewood Treaty”. Despite this, on the 18th of March 2004 one journalist, Audrey Young,
quoted directly from a speech by the Hon. Winston Peters and qualified his statements to show he was talking about the
“Littlewood Treaty”. This text went out in an early Herald edition to the Bay of Plenty. The offending “Littlewood Treaty”
text was, it seems, discovered by censors and quickly eliminated before the next printed edition. The two articles (early and
later editions) remained exactly the same physical size and general layout, except for the later edition‟s exclusion of the 3
instances when the “Littlewood Treaty” was mentioned. Filler text was inserted in place of the earlier material, thus changing
a dynamic article into something quite nondescript and reasonably sterile. Most assuredly, the fact that Mr. Peters advocated
using an altogether different English version of the treaty as the basis of our legislation, in place of the “official” English
version, was immensely newsworthy. If the treaty interpretation we adhered to was, indeed, wrong it was the story of the
century for New Zealanders.




                                                                                                                            128
                                                    Now you see it... Now you don't

Next



                                                               Chapter 8

                     WAS THE LITTLEWOOD TREATY WRITTEN ON THE 4th OF FEBRUARY 1840?

As stated, if the Littlewood Treaty text was written on the 4th of February 1840, then it is, without any doubt, Busby‟s final lost draft
that historians have been looking for since 1840. There was no Maori Tiriti O Waitangi until the 5th of February. If anyone were
intent upon destroying the credibility of the Littlewood Treaty document, they would first attack, and cast serious doubt upon, the
written date at the end of the document.

With that in mind, let‟s undertake a historical study of the chronology of events, which prove, very adequately, that the date of the 4th
of February 1840, as recorded on the document, is correct. We will consider surviving letter, diary or official report accounts of
events, written between the 1st and 5th of February 1840 to show the circumstances and setting in which the final draft was written.

It is critical to establish where Hobson was on the 3rd and 4th of February 1840 especially and whose company he was in. What is the
evidence that puts Hobson in the near vicinity of James Reddy Clendon on the 4th of February and, thus, lends credence to the final
drafting session being held ashore at Clendon‟s estate, rather than aboard H.M.S Herald.

Who did Hobson meet with in the Paihia-Kororareka district on the 3rd and 4th of February 1840 to discuss and finalise the English
text for the treaty? There was a final meeting of sorts, but how formal, how large or, specifically, which transient attendees and
advisors met with Hobson during those two final days prior to the grand assembly at Waitangi?

Felton Mathew‟s account.

The entries within Felton Mathew‟s letters to his wife, Sarah provide us with a chronology of events that cover the period when the
final draft of the treaty was completed. Due to having left the ship, H.M.S. Herald, very early on Sunday the 2nd of February 1840
and, also, having suffered illness on the Saturday, for which he‟d taken calomil* medication, Felton Mathew made no entries
concerning Sunday until Monday the 3rd of February. From what can be deduced within his letter entry to Sarah, he went ashore on

                                                                                                                                       129
Sunday to Paihia with other members of Hobson‟s staff to attend church. Hobson did not accompany them, as he was too ill. On this
day Felton listened to a sermon by Reverend Henry Williams and met Busby there, which resulted in being formally introduced to
Busby‟s wife for the first time. This was, without doubt, the occasion when George Cooper handed Busby the rough notes of a „treaty
draft‟ that had been prepared by Hobson and Freeman in days previous.
Busby was to state in later years that on the occasion when Cooper brought the rough notes to him that „Hobson was so unwell as to
be unable to leave the ship‟.

Certainly, from Felton‟s diary entries, we can glean that Hobson was feeling much better on Monday the 3rd of February and spent the
day in the company of missionaries Henry Williams, Richard Taylor and George Clarke, amongst others. Taylor and Clarke had
rowed out to H.M.S Herald and found Hobson having a tête à tête with Reverend Henry Williams. They then „stayed tea‟ aboard,
which would infer afternoon tea.
On Monday the 3rd of February Felton Mathew, Surveyor General, had left the ship early to „explore some of the bays and look for
a site for a settlement‟. He had been assessing many sites around the bay in search of a good location for a town. Busby, who Felton
Mathew and, we suppose, George Cooper had met with at Paihia church the day before, was entertaining a scheme of establishing a
township, which he proposed calling „Victoria‟, on land he owned adjacent to his Waitangi house. Felton Mathew found the site
unsuitable for a settlement and later commented:

„The spot which next demanded my attention was that portion of the land claimed by Mr. Busby, on which his present
residence stands; bounded on one side by the Bay, and on another by the Waitangi River, and which it appears that gentleman
has laid out for a town, under the name of Victoria, several allotments having been already sold.
The land itself is far more level and suitable for building than any other spot in the Bay of Islands, but is fully exposed to
almost every wind that blows; it is open to the full set of the sea, and its shore is surrounded by a most dangerous shoal,
extending many hundred yards from the land, which renders it perfectly inaccessible to ships and nearly so to boats, unless the
weather be perfectly fair and calm. The river itself is very shoal, and the only practicable channel very narrow and precarious;
this spot does not present one solitary advantage as a site of settlement (see Enclosure 1, in No. 41, B of Islands, N Zealand, 23
Mar. 1840).

When Busby wrote his first treaty draft on the 2nd and 3rd of February 1840 he saw no harm in adding a reference to „Victoria‟
township as the place where the treaty assembly would convene. This addition was, conceivably, to give his Victoria township
business venture a needed helping hand. Hobson and the other advisors, however, took a rather different view and did not allow the
„assembled in congress at Victoria in Waitangi‟ text to be included in the final English draft of the 4th of February 1840.
Consequently, Reverend Henry Williams made no mention of Busby‟s Wikitoria subdivision in the Maori version.



                                                                                                                                     130
Felton wrote in a letter to his wife:

Monday 3rd Feby. half past 6 A.M. I was prevented from writing to you at all yesterday mine own, by a variety of
circumstances - and I am now doing so before breakfast, as I am going from the ship for the whole day to explore some of the
Bays and look for a site for a settlement - First and foremost therefore, I am happy to say that our disturbances are all
amicably arranged - Captain Nias is more accommodating than ever and we are all good friends again....‟ [There had been a
major row between Hobson & Nias on Saturday evening, which seems to have led to Hobson‟s stress-related sickness on Sunday].

And now for our proceedings of yesterday [Sunday 2nd]. I was very unwell indeed on Saturday & compelled to take Calomil.
O‟ I should have used [it] early yesterday morning to write to you dearest. Immediately after breakfast we started for Paihia to
Church & arrived there in very good time - The station is very prettily situated and in a firm sandy Bay, backed in by an
amphitheatre of lofty hills - and the houses are very good and neatly finished - The gardens redolent by the perfumes of sweet
briar and clover, evinces also English feelings - The service was very creditably performed by Mr. Williams & with very little
variation from the usual church service, except the long hymns and the omission of the litany - The sacrament was
administered, of which we all partook - and great indeed was the satisfaction I experienced in doing so; although I could have
wished that you mine own, had been with me to participate in the rite - but separated as we now are, I felt the greatest
satisfaction in such an opportunity of commending you specially to the protection of the Almighty - and praying for a blessing
of our enterprise - They have a very pretty little organ in the chapel and the whole service was conducted in a very creditable
manner - Busby and his wife were there and I was formally introduced to the latter - She is a very gentile person, both in
appearance and manner; which you will wonder at when I tell you that is very like Mrs. Roger Therry! and like her has a very
loud voice. -

We rowed some distance up a creek near Busby‟s house. I then returned on board to Governor - In the afternoon we all
landed for the purpose of accompanying the Governor to look at a cottage which is to let at Kororarika - and I believe he has
made his mind to take it and write by the Samuel Winter for Mrs. Hobson to come immediately. - Indeed by the store ship, if
she can possibly get ready. We have all persuaded him to do so, fully convinced that it will be much pleasanter for all parties. I
dare say they will not mind detaining the ship a few days for Mrs. Hobson (see Letter from Felton Mathew to Sarah Mathew,
pg. 19, Special Collections, Auckland Public Library). Underlining added.

Felton Mathews displays considerable piety in what he wrote about religious sentiments for Sunday and it would seem he was
cognisant of the obligation to „Remember the Sabbath day to keep it Holy‟. Being in the presence of the missionaries, whose
cooperation Hobson was anxious to cultivate, would seem to intimate that Felton‟s Sunday row up a creek near Busby‟s house
constituted more of a relaxing Sunday outing than any actual surveying work.

                                                                                                                               131
It will be remembered that Hobson had a terrible argument with Captain Nias on the Saturday night, the resultant stress from which
rendered Hobson ill on Sunday. It would appear that he was determined to seek a composed, onshore location where he could escape
Captain Nias and complete the treaty draft. It‟s very probable that Felton Mathew made an account to Busby on Sunday 2nd
concerning Hobson‟s difficulties with Nias, which had resulted in Hobson‟s stress related illness.

During Sunday, we can safely presume from the historical record, Busby had been handed the rough draft notes of the treaty by
Cooper and had volunteered to advance the work, as Hobson was too ill to carry on. Busby, in assessing the causes and effects of
Hobson‟s shipboard situation, seems to have proffered the suggestion that Hobson occupy his two-room cottage at Kororareka.
Needless to say, Felton Mathew and others took the otherwise ill Hobson to Busby‟s cottage on Sunday afternoon and Hobson was
sufficiently impressed by what he saw to begin thinking of sending for his family. On this occasion, it would seem that Busby did not
accompany them. He remained at his Waitangi home hard at work in trying to organise the very rough treaty notes he‟d been given by
Cooper and to flesh them out into a more coherent body of text.

Felton Mathew makes the following entry for Tuesday:
„Tuesday 4th Feby-1840 - Yesterday after breakfast dearest Sarah, I started away from the ship for the purpose of exploring
one of the inlets of the Bay - calling expectantly at the Post Office, where during the night, the Diana had arrived from Sydney
- I was much disappointed at not finding a letter; altho‟ as she sailed on the Tuesday after as, perhaps I could not expect it, as
you probably did not hear of her - I am looking most anxiously for the Victoria, when I trust to feast my eyes and delight my
heart with a letter from my precious wife...
I discovered nothing yesterday, except there is nothing to discover - The country is so very much broken and rugged as to be
really almost impractible...‟

On the Monday morning, knowing that the passenger ship Diana had arrived in the night, Felton Mathew went to the Kororareka Post
Office to see if a letter had arrived from Sarah. He was doing his exploration work on the northern side of the Bay on Monday the 3rd
and Tuesday the 4th of February and the focus of his attention seems to have been Hutia Creek, which is a large area inlet, bordered
by mangroves in the shallows and extensive low-lying, damp marshy ground on the land-proper. Felton Mathew found little solid,
even terrain that was suitable for building sites in that area, let alone a complete township. He resumed his explorations on the
northern side of the harbour on Tuesday the 4th of February 1840 with Willoughby Shortland as his companion.
Wednesday 5th Feby 1840.
„... - After breakfast yesterday, Shortland and I started away in our whaleboat to explore some of the bays and inlets on the
Northern side of the harbour - We found the face of the country just the same as the other parts - so broken and rugged that
you cannot find an acre of level ground anywhere - There is a magnificent harbour with space and depth sufficient for all the
ships in the world; but on shore there is nowhere room even for a fishing village...‟

                                                                                                                                  132
Whereas Felton Mathew and Willoughby Shortland were engaged in exploration work on the Monday and Tuesday, William Hobson
and James Freeman were aboard H.M.S. Herald through much of the day on Monday the 3rd but, later, stayed overnight ashore at
Kororareka. We know from a diary account written by Taylor, as well as by reference to the location named in a despatch title written
by Freeman, that Hobson was on the ship until Monday afternoon. However, Freeman‟s late afternoon despatch was written ashore at
Kororareka.

In returning to the ship on the night of Tuesday the 4th, Felton Mathew found Hobson had returned also. Hobson had spent Monday
night and much of Tuesday the 4th ashore on the Kororareka side of the bay. Of this Felton Mathew writes concerning events of the
4th of February 1840:
„... - We reached the ship just at dark, after a very pleasant day - Captain Hobson agreed yesterday [the 4th of February] to take
Busby‟s house [two room cottage at Kororareka] for his family, for a year at a rent of £200 - It contains two rooms! He intends to
send for her by the “Samuel Winter” (see Felton Mathew‟s letter to Sarah Mathew, pg. 22 Special Collections, Auckland Public
Library).
*Footnote: „Soda went on insect stings and bites, fat meat poultice on boils and calomil and salts inside for whatever ailed you‟
(see Stories of Hub & Anne Moore).

We know from the testimony of Busby that he went to Hobson on the afternoon of the 3rd of February and “submitted” an English
draft of the Treaty of Waitangi for consideration. Busby most certainly went to Hobson that late afternoon or evening and the venue
was certainly ashore, as Freeman wrote his afternoon despatch letter from Kororareka and not from H.M.S. Herald. It would appear
that Hobson was going to try out Busby‟s cottage and spend the night there, as well as assess and discuss Busby‟s treaty draft.

Alternatively, it‟s highly likely that Hobson, Busby and Freeman spent the night at the spacious new home of Busby‟s close friend and
confederate, James Reddy Clendon. The Littlewood Treaty document was positively written on Clendon‟s personal stock of paper.
Hobson most definitely stayed ashore on Monday night, as despatches prepared that evening for Governor Sir George Gipps gave the
location as Kororarika, Bay of Islands rather than the usual, H.M.S Herald, Bay of Islands.

From the historical record it would be easy to deduce that some semblance of a group, composed of William Hobson, James Busby
and James Freeman in company with, possibly, Reverend‟s Henry Williams, Richard Taylor and George Clarke, went ashore to
Kororareka to Busby‟s two-room cottage. The 3 missionaries, who‟d spent part of the afternoon with Hobson aboard H.M.S Herald on
Monday the 3rd of February also needed to go ashore, although Williams, possibly, went directly to Paihia on the opposite side of the
bay. As for Reverend‟s Richard Taylor and George Clarke, they remained at Kororareka that night, it would seem, as they were still
visiting people on that side of the bay the next day, including James Reddy Clendon, U.S. Consul.



                                                                                                                                  133
By Tuesday the 4th of February, Hobson agreed to pay Busby £200 per annum for rental of the premises, which would infer that
Hobson and Busby were still together on the Tuesday. Any such agreement could only have been concluded with the two men being
together to discuss and finalise the transaction. Hobson being ashore is further corroborated by the fact that the final English draft of
the Treaty of Waitangi was handed, by Hobson, to Reverend Henry Williams at 4 p.m. on the 4th of February 1840. In Reverend
Williams‟ account he describes how Hobson came to him with the final draft and requested it be translated into the Maori language
by the next morning.

So, what do we know or what can we safely surmise?

The main purpose of the visits and, subsequent, stay ashore was, plausibly, to find a composed environment in which to finalise the
English draft of the treaty. We know that Hobson met with Busby during the late afternoon or evening of the 3rd with this purpose in
mind and went over the treaty draft that Busby had prepared.

We know from historical records that Busby went to Hobson in the late afternoon on the 3rd of February and „submitted‟ his treaty
draft for consideration.

We know that Hobson spent a segment of the afternoon of Monday the 3rd of February in the company of three senior missionaries
and that all must have left the ship at approximately the same time in the afternoon, with all or some accompanying Hobson to
Kororareka.

We know that Hobson was ashore on the afternoon/ evening of the 3rd of February because that‟s the location from whence James
Stuart Freeman wrote a despatch letter and stated the location of writing as “Kororarika” in the title.

We know that Hobson was still ashore on the morning of the 4th because Freeman‟s despatch letter failed to mention H.M.S. Herald
in the title. On this day Hobson also arrived at an agreement with Busby to rent Busby‟s two-room cottage at Kororareka. Hobson had
visited the cottage on the 2nd and 3rd and negotiated an agreement for its rental on the 4th of February 1840.

We know that Hobson was still ashore on the afternoon of the 4th of February 1840 because he went to Reverend Henry Williams
with the completed final English draft of the treaty at 4 p.m. The evidence would suggest he went by boat from Okiato across to Paihia
to deliver the document, which was positively written on Clendon‟s personal stock of paper. The original Paihia missionary settlement
where Williams lived was quite close to Okiato, via the narrowest shoreline-to-shoreline stretch of harbour. In today‟s terms the Paihia
missionary station and settlement was at Te Haumi.



                                                                                                                                        134
James Reddy Clendon hand-drew his map in the 1830‟s from an admiralty chart of the Bay of Islands. It shows all of the channel
depths and safe passage routes for ships. Clendon has added a, b, c, d, e, f, g, as well as, + & 0 signs to show where various important
places around the bay were found. The “0” shows where his Okiato land and house of the time were located. The “+” shows where the
new, substantial home was being built. The “a” seems to indicate where his 1836 ten acre block was located, although his notes

                                                                                                                                    135
describe the location as „Captain Wright‟s and the missionary schooner - his wife and family reside there‟. The “e” shows where
the Paihia missionary settlement was situated [present day Te Haumi]. The “b” shows where Pomaré II‟s PA was located. The
designations, “c, f, g” show where other missionary stations were located. The “d” shows the home of a settler family.

Busby‟s two-room cottage at Kororareka, for which Hobson negotiated a rental from Busby on the 4th of February 1840 for £200 per
annum, was later used as the Colonial Secretary‟s office. It became Willoughby Shortland‟s domicile and work premises when
Hobson and other members of his staff sailed to Thames on the 21st of February 1840.

Prior to Hobson going ashore on the afternoon of the 3rd of February he was presented with a letter of welcome from 45 of
Kororareka‟s leading men. The purpose of the letter was to state their grateful acceptance of a British colony in progress in New
Zealand and to sustain the British incentive. Their letter acknowledged the momentous event of January 30th, related to Hobson‟s
official landing, in full dress uniform, to read his commission from Queen Victoria at Kororareka Church. The welcome letter was
accompanied by a second, memorial letter, signed by 41 witnesses to the proceedings of the 30th of January. This was to record the
auspicious occasion as a historical, founding event, such that it would always be remembered by posterity. Listed within the first 3
names of the witnesses were James Busby and James Reddy Clendon.

We know that Hobson had several visitors aboard H.M.S. Herald through the morning and afternoon of the 3rd of February, any of
whom could have brought him the letter. It‟s highly likely that Surveyor General, Felton Mathew, who had gone ashore to the Post
Office to see if there was a letter from his wife, had carried the letter from Kororareka‟s leading men to Hobson. Felton seems to have
been concentrating his exploration work on the Waitangi and northern side of the bay. This being the case, he would have returned to
the ship that morning, before heading across the bay to commence work.

Upon receipt of the letter on the 3rd of February James Stuart Freeman immediately set about writing a despatch to Governor Sir
George Gipps to inform him of this welcome from the townsmen. Because Freeman wrote to Gipps in the morning or early afternoon,
while still aboard H.M.S. Herald, he gave the location and date of writing as: H.M.S. Herald, Bay of Islands, 3 Feb. 1840.
Later in the day, Hobson and his party were ashore at Kororareka and etiquette or good manners demanded that Hobson give a
dignified response to the citizenries‟ formal pledge of support. During the evening James Stuart Freeman wrote the reply thereto and,
because he was ashore at the time, gave the location as: Kororarika, Bay of Islands, 3 February 1840.
The next morning, Freeman continued working on the Gipps despatch and wrote out a full copy of the memorial letter, signed by 41
witnesses to the auspicious, 30th of January 1840 proclamation and commission reading occasion. On this morning Freeman wrote the
date and location for his letter-writing task as: Bay of Islands, 4 February 1840.




                                                                                                                                       136
By the evening of the 4th of February Hobson and Freeman were aboard the ship once again. Freeman added yet more to the despatch
he‟d been preparing, over several days, for Governor Sir George Gipps. On this occasion Freeman reverted to his normal way of
writing the location as: H.M.S. Herald, Bay of Islands 4 February 1840.
Again, the next day, another newly written document said: H.M.S Herald, Bay of Islands, 5th Feb. 1840.

The following is a page from the British Parliamentary Papers, showing (a) Hobson‟s response to the townsfolk, (b) Hobson‟s account
of the assembly at Kororareka Church on the 30th of January where the proclamations were read and (c) the memorial letter for
posterity, related to the events of the 30th of January 1840 and witnessed by some of those in attendance, including James Busby and
James Reddy Clendon. The original documents and transcriptions can be viewed on microfilm (see Microfilm no.1805, New Zealand
despatches, 1830 - 1846, University of Auckland Library).




                                                                                                                                137
138
This page from the British Parliamentary Papers begins by giving Hobson's response letter to the one received from and
signed by 45 leading men of Kororareka (written as Kororarika). Hobson's despatch letter to his superiors, sent onward to
Britain via Governor Sir George Gipps in Australia, shows that it was dictated ashore at Kororareka.

The use of "Most Gracious" or the repeated use of "most", seems to indicate Freeman as both the author and scribe of this
response letter. Only a few days prior to this, Freeman wrote his own "Most Gracious" Majesty Preamble in a rough English
draft of the treaty. By about July 1840 he would manufacture at least 3 composite versions of the treaty in English,
incorporating his own, "Most Gracious Majesty" Preamble, one copy of which was despatched to the United States.

                                                          Chapter 9

                                  TREATY DRAFTING ADVISORS AND PARTICIPANTS

Historian Dr. Claudia Orange writes:

„Hobson, therefore expected missionary cooperation and received it in full. By the evening of 3 February, when he held several
sets of notes from which the final treaty draft had to be selected, he had been visited by a number of missionaries - Henry
Williams, Charles Baker, George Clarke, William Colenso and Richard Taylor of the CMS, and the Wesleyan James Buller
who was passing through. Any or all of these men may have influenced the treaty‟s wording. But it was William‟s presence on
the Herald that Hobson had first requested, and had he sought advice on the final treaty wording, it was to Williams, head of
the CMS mission, that he was most likely to refer.
The role that Williams played in final decisions of the English draft will probably never be known precisely. Nor can any trace
be found of the final English draft put together on the Herald‟ (see: The Treaty of Waitangi, by Claudia Orange, pg. 39).
Underlining added.




                                                                                                                            139
Historical documentation does not seem to support the statements of Dr. Claudia Orange or other leading treaty historians
that the drafting of the finalised English treaty text took place aboard H.M.S. Herald. To the contrary, Freeman‟s despatch
titles indicate Hobson was not aboard during the night of the 3rd when much of the final treaty discussion took place. Nor was
he on H.M.S Herald throughout most of the following day, when the final draft was fully completed by Busby and handed to
Reverend Williams, by Hobson, for translation into the Maori language. If any kind of formal gathering aboard ship had been

                                                                                                                           140
anticipated and organised, then it‟s probable there would have been, at least, some scant mention of it in the H.M.S. Herald
log. There is no such entry concerning a shipboard conference and the log records only the passenger ship Diana arriving from
Sydney, rigging the large tent ashore for the treaty assembly on the 5th, crew employed making paint, activities of the
carpenter, ropemaker and sailmaker, then mooring the ship at sunset.
The despatches prepared by James Stuart Freeman, Hobson‟s personal secretary, were written ashore on the afternoon of the
3rd and morning of the 4th of February 1840. Hobson also finalised an agreement on the 4th for long-term rental of Busby‟s
two room cottage at Kororareka.

On the Monday night, with the treaty assembly only one full day removed, Hobson was under considerable pressure to finalise the
English wording and get it translated into the Maori language by the morning of the 5th of February. He was completely out of time,
with only one day left beyond the evening of the 3rd of February 1840.

Ian Wards, former Head Government Historian, who virtually lived and researched at the National Archives from 1948 until after
retirement, well into the 1990‟s, states in his 1968 book:

„A Treaty, soon to be known as the Treaty of Waitangi, was prepared with the co-operation of Busby, J.R. Clendon and two
missionaries, H. Williams and A. Brown‟ (see Shadow of the Land, by Ian Wards, Wellington, 1968, pg. 42). Government
Historian, Ian Wards lists one of his sources as, James. Rutherford, The Treaty of Waitangi.

Although the documented evidence shows that Clendon was involved, there doesn‟t seem to be much to indicate that Reverend Alfred
Nesbit Brown of Tauranga mission had any input. According to a suggestion proffered by Dr. Phil Parkinson, Ian Wards was probably
referring to Captain Gordon Brown, who transported goods for the C.M.S Mission. Gordon Brown later provided a back-translation
of the Maori treaty that was used in April 1840 for comparative reference by James Reddy Clendon and Commodore Charles Wilkes.
Twenty years later, Donald McLean also used Gordon Brown‟s back-translation and Dr. Parkinson further suggests that this was,
seemingly, in preparation for the Kohimarama Conference, initiated by Governor Gore Brown and held in early July 1860.




                                                                                                                                  141
142
The four primary players in the final English drafting of the Treaty and its subsequent translation into Te Tiriti O Waitangi
were, in the preceding montage, Top left: Captain William Hobson (Lieutenant-Governor), Top right: James Busby (British
Resident). Bottom left: Reverend Henry Williams (Head of the C.M.S. Mission and official translator). Bottom right: Captain
James Reddy Clendon (U.S. Consul, upon whose paper the Littlewood Treaty was written. The pictures are very
representative of how these gentlemen looked at the time the Treaty of Waitangi was produced.

It is apparent that Hobson pre-planned a gathering of some sort, to seek counsel from senior missionaries and leading local dignitaries,
foremost of whom were Busby and Clendon. Some senior missionaries gave opinions while in transit or, possibly, tarried longer on
the night of the 3rd of February to help in the treaty brainstorming discussions. Others, like William Colenso, are said to have had
input during these two days of finalising the English draft.

James Stuart Freeman, Hobson‟s private secretary was in attendance during discussions of the 3rd & 4th of February, although he was,
probably, otherwise engaged in preparing despatch letters for Sir George Gipps.

Despite the fact that H.M.S. Herald stood directly off Kororareka township, going ashore or returning to the ship, was not necessarily
an easy task, especially in unsettled weather. It‟s quite obvious that when Hobson‟s party went ashore on this occasion in the late
afternoon of the 3rd of February they had no intention of returning to the ship later in the dark of night. If a treaty draft writing and
finalising conference had been pre-planned in preceding days, then Hobson could not have confidently anticipated it be held aboard
H.M.S. Herald. Moderately bad weather would have negated any possibility of the landlubber advisors reaching the ship or returning
home afterwards. Felton Mathew described the physical characteristics of Kororareka Bay, which gives us some idea of the logistics
or difficulties incurred when going to and fro, ship to shore:

„The principal, and indeed the only settlement yet formed in the Bay of Islands is at “Kororarika,” a small bight which is
shown on the Admiralty chart: and to this point my attention was in the first place directed, as being the spot in which the
majority of the present European population is concentrated. It is, in my opinion, open to many formidable objections, which
unfit it for a principal settlement, and preclude the possibility of its ever becoming a place of other than secondary importance.
The water, in approaching the beach, is very shallow, so that it is impossible for even small vessels to approach within a
considerable distance of the shore, which is fully exposed to the north and north westerly winds and on which there is
frequently so much surf as to render it difficult, if not impossible for a boat to effect a landing‟ (see Enclosure 1, in No. 41, B of
Islands, N Zealand, 23 Mar. 1840).

The important role played by Clendon.



                                                                                                                                       143
The natural and logical venue for a final drafting session, incorporating a sizable group of participants, was the spacious 8-room home
of James Reddy Clendon at Okiato. Alternatively, Busby‟s cottage at Kororareka might well have proved to be more than adequate for
discussions and a treaty brainstorming session on the night of the 3rd of February. We know that James Reddy Clendon also had a
cottage at Kororareka by 1845 and, conceivably, owned it on February 3rd 1840.

Reverend‟s Richard Taylor and George Clarke took tea with Clendon at Okiato on the 4th of February, as mentioned in Taylor‟s diary,
so these two senior missionaries were, certainly, still in the area on the Kororareka side of the bay. Clendon was entertaining an
American Lieutenant at the time of the missionaries‟ visit. Taylor‟s diary entries for the 3rd and 4th of February state:

„Feb 3rd. I went with Mr. Clark to Paihia to pay our respects to our new Governor. We went to Kororareka in the morning
and spent so much of the day there that we hesitated proceeding to the Herald to call on the Governor; As however Mr.
Williams was on board we went and received a gracious reception. Captain Hobson appeared very communicative and was
very courteous. We stayed tea on board.
4. We went with Mr. Palmer on board the Samuel Winter and dined there afterwards we went to Mr. Mair We were nearly
swamped by our stupid boys running the mast of the boat against the boom of the vessel. Captain Robertson the commander
of the vessel was a gentlemanly person. We took tea at Captain Clendon‟s, where I met the 1st Lieutenant of the American
Squadron now at Sydney‟ (see Reverend Richard Taylor‟s Diary, Auckland Institute & Museum).

When Taylor mentions, “we stayed tea aboard”, he probably means afternoon tea.

The American First Lieutenant, plausibly from Commodore Wilkes‟ expeditionary squadron had, apparently, come over on H.M.S.
Samuel Winter to be an observer at the Treaty assembly and this same officer attended proceedings on the 5th of February. Richard
Taylor wrote in his diary entry for the 6th of February:

„Yesterday an American naval officer attended but left before a single favourable speech was made‟.

The primary participants in the drafting of the 1835 Declaration of Independence for the Confederation of United Chiefs had been
Busby, Williams, Clarke and Clendon. 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.

As the leading and most influential merchant in the district, Clendon had befriended Busby in 1833 and continuously supported his
attempts to bring law and order to the district. Captain Clendon, an Englishman acting as US Consul, had a thriving business outfitting
or supplying the many American whaling ships visiting the Bay of Islands. In his capacity as US Consul, he recorded the arrivals of

                                                                                                                                    144
151 American ships between 1839 and 1841. His main residence was situated on the harbour frontage at Okiato, about 4-miles from
the Kororareka shantytown of fifty or so houses and shops. He also had a cottage at Kakikiroa nearer to Kororareka Township and,
seemingly, a cottage in the town as well. By 1845, at least, he had a Kororareka cottage near to the home of Bishop Pompallier. Dr.
Paul Moon states that Clendon and his family moved to a house at Kororareka on the 1st of May 1840, having sold their Okiato estate
to William Hobson‟s government (see The Treaty And Its Times, by Paul Moon and Peter Biggs, pg. 249).

As the leading businessman in the district, it seems obligatory that Clendon maintained mercantile premises at Kororareka, although
he ran a trading post from his Okiato estate, where there was sheltered and safe deep water mooring available for large ships close to
shore. Surveyor General, Felton Mathew, later recommended Clendon‟s estate as the location for the township of Russell and
Clendon‟s spacious new home became the first Government House of New Zealand. Felton Mathew wrote:

Proceeding up the harbour, I examined the shores on either side without finding any suitable locality, the land being in all
cases too broken and precipitous, and the water too shallow to admit of vessels approaching it. Nearly at the head of the
anchorage, however, there is a spot belonging to Mr. Clendon, American Consul, which after a most minute and careful
examination, both by land and water, I can confidently assert to be the only spot in the Bay of Islands which is at all suitable
for a settlement, or calculated for the purposes of the Government. It is distinguished on the Admiralty chart as Point Omata;
the water along a large portion of its boundary is so deep as to admit of ships lying almost close in shore, and an extensive line
of wharfs and quays may be constructed at a very moderate expense. This part of the harbour, moreover, being land locked,
presents the best and safest anchorage. The land rises less abruptly from the shores than is common in the Bay of Islands and
there is a considerable extent of undulating ground highly favourable for the laying out of a town. There is abundance of fresh
water, firewood, and brick earth, and its position on the southern shore of the harbour, and just at the junction of the
Kawakawa river presents peculiar advantages for internal communication, either by land or water. The Kawakawa I have
examined for a distance of some miles upwards, and I had a clear and unobstructed channel, having a depth of water of one
fathom at least at low water (see Felton Mathew‟s Report, Enclosure 1, in No. 41, B of Islands, N Zealand, 23 Mar. 1840).
Prior to Clendon purchasing the large Okiato Estate, he‟d acquired property closer to Kororareka by 1.2 miles at Kakikiroa. The site
consisted of “more or less” 10-acres and had been bought from Frederick R. Spooner, who, in turn, had bought it from William
Brown. This purchase was on August 30th 1836.

By March 13th 1840 Felton Mathew, Surveyor General, was involved in business discussions with James Reddy Clendon. This
culminated in a general agreement that the government would purchase Clendon‟s entire estate as the site of the new township of
Russell. It appears that some rental of Clendon‟s premises, by the government, began in February 1840, but formal agreement of
government purchase for the entire property was entered into on the 22nd of March 1840 (see Clendon‟s letter to Lord Stanley,
November 10th 1845, Clendon House Papers, Special Collections, Auckland Public Library).

                                                                                                                                    145
„The government agrees to purchase from Captain Clendon his property at Okiato in the Bay of Islands said to contain by
measurement Two hundred & thirty acres, together with all buildings and improvements thereon, and also another portion of
land supposed to contain about 10 acres, immediately adjoining the said property of Okiato, for the sum of Fifteen Thousand
Pounds…‟ (Felton Mathew, S. G.)

„The buildings are valued at Thirteen Thousand Pounds Sterling and the land at Two Thousand Pounds…Bay of Islands, 23rd
March 1840, W. Hobson, Lt. Governor‟

„Value of annual Rent for the buildings at Okiato, April 1840,

Store £850
Dwelling House £200
Cottage £70
Blacksmith Shop £60
Carpenter Shop £90
Cottage £30

Memo: Surveyed by:
Mr. Shortland-Chief Magistrate.
Mr. Mathew- Surveyor General.
Mr. Mason-Architect and Superintendent of Public Works‟.
(see Clendon MSS, taken from Professor Rutherford‟s copy, Clendon House Papers, Special Collections, Auckland Public
Library… original now missing).
Hobson, very early on, was enamoured by the general location where Clendon lived, as it soon became the seat of government for
New Zealand. We know that all buildings or lands acquired by Hobson in March and April, on behalf of the government, belonged to
Clendon. These included those for his own family, other incoming staff or soldiers, government store facilities and, ultimately, the
physical premises of the first Government House of New Zealand.

When Hobson wrote to Lord Stanley from the new Government House in Auckland on August the 4th 1841, he acknowledged that the
government owed James Reddy Clendon 18-months rental. This tells us that government rental of at least some, and later all, of
Clendon‟s premises commenced in February 1840. Hobson states:




                                                                                                                                  146
„His Excellency replied that he saw no objection to my paying a fair rent for the stores and premises, which have been for the
last 18 months of the highest value to the Government‟.

„...and I submitted to the Executive Council the propriety of granting, at the usual rate of interest in this country, a sum of
money amounting to two thousand three hundred pounds (2,300) as rent for the 18 months for the stores [large storage sheds]
wharves, dwelling houses and other premises that had been used in the Government service at Russell, and to give Mr.
Clendon a maximum grant of land according to the provision of Act of Council 4 Vict. No. 7 in compensation for the land,
buildings &c. at that place...‟ (see The Auckland Chronicle, “Extracts From The Latest Blue Book”, Despatch no. 41, Governor
Hobson to Lord Stanley, The Clendon House Papers, Special Collections, Auckland Public Library).

Clendon appears to have first met Hobson in 1837 when Hobson had to intervene, with the help of missionary Samuel Marsden and
James Busby, to negotiate, in behalf of the settlers, during hostilities that had broken out between Pomaré II and Titore. During the
fighting two great chiefs, Pi and Titore were killed and it was feared that their deaths would initiate “utu” or revenge killing. At that
time, when Captain Hobson arrived in H.M.S. Rattlesnake in a show of British naval strength and gunboat diplomacy, the English
settlers risked being caught in the middle of the warring Maori factions. Clendon‟s Okiato estate was purchased from Pomaré II and
Kiwikiwi of Ngati Manu in 1830 and Pomaré‟s PA was situated adjacent to the 10-acres of land that Clendon had bought in 1836.
Clendon made further purchases from the chief in 1837 (80 additional acres at Okiato) and 1838 (The Clendon farm of 3,342 acres at
Manawaora).

„Early in 1837 the British Resident in New Zealand, James Busby, sent word that tribal war was endangering British subjects.
Hobson left in the Rattlesnake, arriving at the Bay of Islands on 26 May. He met Busby; spoke with missionaries, prominent
settlers and Maori leaders. With Samuel Marsden and Busby he interviewed the warring chiefs, Pomaré II and Titore,
attempting to reconcile them, and warned against violence to British subjects‟ (see Dictionary of New Zealand Biography).

From the foregoing information that exists within our historic documents on public file, it can be established that Hobson‟s
movements for February 3rd 1840 put him in reasonably close proximity to property owned by James Reddy Clendon. It is also very
probable that Hobson, in 1837, had already met Clendon who, as a close friend of Pomaré II, would logically have been one of the
prominent settlers aiding Hobson in negotiations with the warring chiefs. From the moment Hobson first landed on the 30th of January
1840, James Reddy Clendon appears to have befriended him and been central to all of his on-shore activities and political incentives.

Inasmuch as Dr. Phil Parkinson has concluded that the Littlewood Treaty was written by James Busby, and in consideration of the fact
that the paper upon which it is written came from Clendon‟s personal stock, we can confidently accept that the date of 4th
February 1840, as written upon the Littlewood Treaty document, is correct.

                                                                                                                                       147
It is very doubtful that Clendon would have carried his personal stock of W. Tucker 1833 paper to a venue outside of his own estate.
The compelling evidence shows that the final drafting session was held at his home on the 4th of February 1840 and that at least two
copies of the final draft were completed there on that date, including Clendon‟s own transcribed copy.

Hobson needed to go ashore from the clamour, bustle and confinement of H.M.S Herald, if for no other reason than to get away from
Captain Nias.
From the moment HMS Herald had dropped anchor in Kororareka Bay on the 29th of January, the ship became a hostile environment,
where Hobson had no assurances whatsoever, of any cooperation from a belligerent Captain Nias. The fact is that Nias was being
deliberately obtuse, disrespectful and obstructive to anything that Hobson wished to do throughout this entire period. The on-going
conflict with Nias led to Hobson, in a severe state of stress, having a paralytic stroke only 1-month after his arrival in the country.
Let‟s review some first-person accounts of incidents that demonstrate the degree of this worsening rift, 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‟.
Felton Mathew further writes:
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

                                                                                                                                      148
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‟.

*Footnote: There are always two sides to every story and the daughters of Captain Nias later wrote a book to vindicate the reputation
of their father. They were very concerned that authors like T.L. Buick, who wrote The Treaty of Waitangi in 1914 (2nd & 3rd editions
in 1933 & 1936 respectively), were only quoting slanted or one-sided accounts, showing their father in a very bad light. The daughters
of Captain Nias contributed to a book called, Captain Joseph Nias and The Treaty Of Waitangi - A Vindication, T.D.H. Hall, 1938.

*Footnote 2: BREEZE. To raise a breeze; to kick up a dust or breed a disturbance (see Dictionary of the Vulgar Tongue, 1811).

Regardless of how one might wish to apportion blame for the impasse that existed between Hobson and Nias, from Hobson‟s
perspective things had come to a head and he could no longer tolerate the continuously obstinate and obstructive attitude of Nias. At a
time when Hobson desperately needed a very composed, well-organised environment in which to think, plan and successfully
delegate, Nias was a constant negative distraction and source of aggravation. By the evening of Saturday the 1st of February, Hobson
had only 3-days left in which to write and prepare a complete treaty document. By the following Wednesday, he would be obliged to
stand before a crowd of over 1000 people and conduct a meeting with such finesse, eloquence and rationale that the Northern chiefs of
New Zealand would be induced to sign their powers of sovereignty over to Queen Victoria. Hobson had just come halfway around the
world to secure a treaty, the clauses of which, at this late juncture, remained unwritten. The Governor-in-waiting was under immense
pressure and unnecessary stress, brought about by his constant arguments and frustrations with Nias, causing him to become
increasingly ill. Of this, historian T.L. Buick wrote:

„To add to their difficulties, Captain Hobson began now to experience the symptoms of that illness which in less than three
years proved fatal to him. He became indisposed and was unable to leave the Herald. In the seclusion of his cabin, however, he
devoted himself to an effort to reduce to concrete terms the obligations in which the Crown was prepared to involve itself, and
the reciprocating advantages it would require from the natives. In this he achieved but meagre success, and conscious of
failure he despatched the principal member of his staff, Mr. George Cooper, to Mr. Busby, giving him his rough notes together
with a request that the erstwhile Resident might favour him with his opinion as to their suitability as the basis of a treaty‟ (see
The Treaty of Waitangi, by T.L. Buick, pp 109-110).



                                                                                                                                   149
It would appear that after Sunday 2nd of February Hobson was not going to tolerate another night aboard ship until the treaty draft
was finalised, but would stay ashore in order to compose himself and have a peaceable environment in which to complete the urgent
work. At this late stage he would have to call in all the favours he could muster from the local missionaries and dignitaries to help
him, as time was very much of the essence, with the pre-scheduled treaty assembly only days away and still no written treaty to
present to the assembly. He seems to have had concentrated expert assistance from Busby, Clendon and Williams, with in-transit or
spasmodic advice and help from Taylor and Clarke. Historians also acknowledge contributions of others like William Colenso and
James Buller.

                                                             Chapter 10

            THE W TUCKER 1833 WATERMARK FOUND UPON THE LITTLEWOOD TREATY DOCUMENT

If the final English draft of the treaty had of been completed aboard H.M.S. Herald, then Hobson‟s or Freeman‟s on-board paper
stocks would have been used. If Hobson had dipped into his personal stock, then, logically, the final draft would have been written on
James Simmons 1838-watermarked paper. Had Freeman supplied the sheet from his secretarial stock, then it, seemingly, would
have been Dewdney and Co 1838-watermarked paper.

Alternatively, if the final English drafting conference had of been held over at James Busby‟s official Residence at Paihia-Waitangi,
then the paper would have borne a J & J Town Turkey Mill 1838 watermark, consistent with Busby‟s stock in use at that time.

Another brand that shows up in government despatches throughout 1840 is Harris and Tremlett 1838.

After the Littlewood Treaty document was examined by Dr. Claudia Orange in 1992 and the watermark identified as a W. Tucker
1833, Kathryn Patterson, Head Archivist at the National Archives, wrote the following to John Littlewood:

„At National Archives there has been an item-by-item search through all surviving letters received and filed in 1840 and 1841
sequences for the watermark on the Littlewood document. No exact match has been found. Three items only paper
watermarked “W Tucker” - one with the date 1836 and two with the date 1837 - and these provide no obvious handwriting
similarity to the Littlewood document. An inspection of the Old Land Claim files relating to Clendon has not produced any
relevant evidence‟ (see Letter to John Littlewood from Kathryn Patterson, dated 12th of October 1992). Underling added.

On Monday the 17th of May 2004 I went to the University of Auckland‟s microfilm section with research colleague, Brendon. We
found the microfilm containing photo originals of U.S. Consular despatches sent by James Reddy Clendon to the U.S. Secretary of

                                                                                                                                    150
State. As we began reading the despatch letters, Brendon noticed the faint outline of a watermark on one of the pages and we strained
our eyes to identify it, while adjusting the lighting of the microfilm reader. Brendon could, finally, make it out to be W. Tucker 1833.
This was a very good and exciting find, which showed us that the final draft of the treaty was written, by Busby, on Clendon‟s
personal stock of paper. During the next few hours we were able to clearly identify several more pages amidst the Clendon despatches
bearing this unique watermark.

Almost every letter despatch that James Reddy Clendon sent to the U.S. Secretary of State, John Forsyth between January 1840 and
January 1841 positively contained some W. Tucker 1833-watermarked paper. To date, Clendon is the only individual in New
Zealand known to have used this brand in his correspondence at the time. Some examples of the W Tucker 1833 watermark, appearing
amidst his despatches, are found in:

• Fee endorsements‟ letter, dated the 10th of January 1840 and covering “returns” from the 1st of July 1839 until the 31st of December
1839. This was received by the U.S. Secretary of State on the 18th of June 1840 and positively bears a W. Tucker 1833 watermark.

• Clendon‟s 20th of February 1840 covering letter (despatch No. 6). It was received on the 15th of June 1840. Again the watermark is
a W. Tucker 1833.

• The letter concerning Commodore Charles Wilkes‟ safe arrival and departure, dated the 3rd of July by Clendon appears to be written
on paper that bears the W. Tucker 1833-watermark.

• A letter concerning “returns” of American vessels that have entered this port for the half year ending 31st December 1840‟ is on W.
Tucker 1833 paper. This letter was written on the 11th of January 1841 (despatch No. 9).

It appears that no consideration has been given to watermarks, when tracing pedigrees of the draft notes of the treaty. By comparative
analysis we can ascertain who owned a particular brand of paper and trace the movements of draft writers back to the locations where
they kept their paper stocks.




                                                                                                                                     151
152
Even on microfilm copies of Clendon‟s Consular despatches, the W. Tucker 1833 watermark is clearly discernable. The top
half of the above, two-part picture shows the faint outline of the W Tucker 1833 watermark. The bottom half indicates how it
sits and appears on the same page. Clendon is the only individual in New Zealand known to be using this unique paper stock
in February 1840, which points conclusively to him being the owner of the paper upon which the Littlewood Treaty was
written. This watermark evidence further supports historian Ian Wards‟ statement that Clendon was present when the
English draft wording was worked out. Busby, quite obviously, penned it at Clendon‟s premises, where Clendon kept his
personal supply of paper. It seems unlikely that Clendon would have carried the paper to another venue. Either way, it was his
paper stock.




                                                                                                                          153
Hobson‟s drafting efforts were written upon James Simmons 1838 watermarked paper, which seems to have been his personal
stock, in use when H.M.S Herald first arrived in the Bay of Islands.



                                                                                                                          154
Freeman‟s drafting efforts were written upon Dewdney & Co 1838 paper and this brand seems to have been his N.S.W. government
issued stock when acting in his capacity as Hobson‟s secretary.

Busby held his personal stock of paper onshore at the official residence at Waitangi. Between the 2nd and 3rd of February 1840 he
wrote two sets of treaty rough drafts on J & J Town Turkey Mill 1838 paper and submitted a clean copy of his efforts to Hobson at
Kororareka on the evening of the 3rd.

Beyond the drafting stage.

Clendon‟s presence at the final drafting stage of the English wording for the Treaty of Waitangi becomes very important in view of the
events of the 20th of February and 5th of April 1840, when duplicate copies of Busby‟s final draft (the Littlewood Treaty) were
despatched to the government of the United States. The rapidly changing political climate of New Zealand would, over time, have
major repercussions on the American whaling industry. The treaty had been signed amongst northern chiefs at Waitangi and
Hokianga, as well as at Thames by March 1840. Britain had commenced a process of annexing New Zealand as a colony and
territories within New Zealand were, systematically, being ceded in sovereignty to Queen Victoria. It was James Reddy Clendon‟s
duty as U.S. Consul to inform his superiors in Washington D.C. about the colonisation incentive underway, as well as the terms and
conditions being entered into between the British Crown and the sovereign chiefs.

Document evidence shows that on the 4th of February 1840 James Reddy Clendon knew the final draft English wording of the treaty
up to that point of development when he last saw it, undoubtedly at his own premises, where it had been written on his personal stock
of paper. Whether subtle changes, additions or deletions had occurred to it after that time, he could not know, but it‟s very apparent
that on the 4th of February 1840 he transcribed a copy of the wording he‟d helped to create, before it was taken away to Reverend
Henry Williams for translation. As Consul to the United States of America, Clendon would need a copy for despatch, if Captain
Hobson were ultimately successful in securing a treaty with the chiefs.

Clendon himself was a loyal Englishman and could be trusted by Hobson and Busby to hold any transcript or notes of the treaty
wording he‟d copied in absolute confidence until after a signing ceremony took place. Of Clendon‟s outwardly apparent conflicts of
interest or split loyalties, in being both a British subject and U.S. Consul at the same time, American Commodore Charles Wilkes was
later to write these comments to the U.S. Secretary of State:

„If the Govt. [U.S] should hold this in contemplation [securing an American treaty with the Maori 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

                                                                                                                                   155
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, U.S.S. Vincennes' Letter Book copy of despatch
no. 64, Microfilm 1262, University of Auckland Library, pp 142-145 & 163-168).

James Reddy Clendon‟s role in helping to secure a treaty between Queen Victoria and the native chiefs is largely glossed over in New
Zealand historical circles. Clendon was a close confederate and friend of James Busby and was of constant assistance to the British
Resident in establishing law and order in New Zealand from 1833 until 1840. Along with Reverend Henry Williams and George
Clarke, Clendon was a member of Busby‟s immediate support group and each of these gentlemen were contributors or cosignatories to
both the 1835 Declaration of Independence, instigated by Busby, or the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840.

Of Mr. Clendon‟s influence in convincing the chiefs to sign the Treaty of Waitangi document, Commodore 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 T.L. Buick, pg. 149
footnote).

The W. Tucker 1833 watermark found on Busby‟s final draft attests to the participation of James Reddy Clendon at the final stage
of drafting the Treaty of Waitangi.

Reverend Henry Williams and his 21-year old son, Edward, laboured through the evening and night of the 4th into the morning of the
5th of February to have the Maori translation completed in time for the meeting before the chiefs. On the morning of the 5th of
February 1840, Hobson landed at 9 a.m. on the Paihia-Waitangi side of the bay in full dress uniform and made his way to Busby‟s
Residence where the treaty assembly was to take place. He met with Reverends‟ Henry Williams and Richard Taylor, as well as
British Resident, James Busby, behind closed doors to discuss the newly translated Maori treaty wording.
It‟s very apparent that every effort was made to perfect Williams‟ Maori translation right up until the last minute. Of the finished
Maori version created by Henry and Edward Williams during the previous night, a historical account says:




                                                                                                                                 156
„Upon its completion the work was revised by Mr. Busby, who suggested the elimination of the word Huihuinga used by the
translators, and the substitution of Whakaminenga more adequately to express the idea of the Maori Confederation of Chiefs‟
(see The Treaty of Waitangi, by T.L. Buick, pg. 113).

The historical record tells us, therefore, that almost no alteration to the final translation was required other than the substitution of
Busby‟s preferred word to describe “The Confederation of United Chiefs”.

After the treaty meeting of the 5th of February 1840 got underway at midday, William Hobson read clauses from the English draft
version and Reverend Williams repeated those clauses from the Maori translation version. During this segment of the meeting, no
disputes arose from the crowd related to the accuracy of the translation being delivered and everybody seemed satisfied that Reverend
Williams was representing Hobson‟s English text correctly in the Maori language. Some disputes arose much later over other matters.

In December 2003, Dr. Phil Parkinson, in response to questions posed, expressed this opinion in his return letter, concerning the
English text that Hobson read to the assembly:

„Although nothing can be proven I think that what Hobson read 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 . . .” which in
tone addresses the British listeners, rather than the Maori. Hence the Littlewood text says “ . . . 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 protection of the natives to establish a form of government among them.” Some people have made much of the
absence of the words „lands and estates, forests and fisheries and other properties‟ in the Littlewood document. However, the
expressions it uses “The Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the chiefs and tribes and to all the people of New
Zealand the possession of their lands, dwellings and all their property . . .” is just as effective, only less wordy than that in the
official English text; the point is that all property is confirmed, of whatever kind, so it is unnecessary to go into details about
forests, fisheries, mineral rights or anything else‟

Doctor Parkinson further stated:

„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



                                                                                                                                            157
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).

So, we see that, in Dr. Phil Parkinson‟s view of December 2003, it was the Littlewood Treaty English version that was read by
Hobson to the assembled crowd at Waitangi. According to Dr. Parkinson‟s belief at the time, the Littlewood Treaty existed as
a fully-fledged document and text prior to the Treaty assembly on the 5th of February 1840. His comments also show that Dr.
Parkinson believed the 4th of February 1840 date, written on the document, to be correct and not a latter era mistake by
someone writing the wrong date on a back-translation created weeks, months or years later. If, as he believed in December 2003, the
Littlewood Treaty was read to the crowd, then it must have been the last known English draft of the Treaty of Waitangi and the mother
document to the Maori Tiriti O Waitangi.

In a National Business Review Article of March 4th 2005, Dr. Parkinson expresses an altogether different point of view to the one he
held a little over a year before. The article reads:

„Phil Parkinson, a former national archives historian who originally identified the Littlewood Treaty document as the
handwritten work of James Busby, the senior British resident at Waitangi, is also about to publish his own take on the affair
“in order to quieten this debate down or at least answer the questions.”
Dr. Parkinson, whose book is approved by historian Claudia Orange, will debunk the Littlewood treaty as a curious but
meaningless document, which, in Parkinson‟s considered view, was one of several versions written nearly two weeks after the
February 6, 1840 treaty signing.
Dr. Parkinson said the Littlewood document, while it was dated February 4, was not a draft of the treaty as Mr. Doutré and
his supporters claimed it was.
The Littlewood document was a back-translation from a text in Maori into English in Mr. Busby‟s handwriting, but printed
between February 17 and 20 and mis-dated Mr. Parkinson said‟ (see National Business Review, pg. 13, March 4, 2005).

Dr. Parkinson‟s new position is in stark contrast to that of historian Graham Langton, who is also quoted in the National Business
Review article:

„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?”
It was not signed. The real treaty, finalised on February 4, was the version in Maori signed on February 6, Mr. Langton said.
He said the problem with the Littlewood document - which he said was possibly a genuine draft from 1840 - was it could not

                                                                                                                                     158
be traced from the present day to its actual creation.
“The issue is what does it matter anyway? The Treaty is the one that was signed. The Maori version is the real treaty. This is a
nice curiosity but still does not make a treaty‟

Unlike Dr. Phil Parkinson, historian and archivist Graham Langton is prepared to concede that the Littlewood Treaty is „a draft‟, as
opposed to a back-translation of the Treaty of Waitangi. In so doing he must also concede that the date written at the bottom of the
document, the 4th of February 1840, is not a mistake, but was deliberately put there by its author, James Busby. If that date is correct,
then it naturally follows that the Littlewood Treaty is the final draft of the Treaty of Waitangi and the official English wording. The
Littlewood Treaty is the only complete draft known to exist, with a Preamble, three Articles and an Affirmation section. If it is a draft,
then it is the final draft, as it is the natural, more developed advance on Busby‟s rough notes of the 3rd of February. No further
drafting took place beyond the 4th of February, as the task of translating commenced in the late afternoon of that day.
This is what my colleagues and I have been trying to convey to our establishment historians. The wording of the Littlewood Treaty
constitutes the final English wording of the Treaty of Waitangi and Te Tiriti O Waitangi was derived from these exact words.

The Littlewood Treaty wording was translated into the Maori tongue, beginning at 4 p.m. on the 4th of February 1840. In Article II of
the final draft it states that the rights enshrined by treaty are for all the people of New Zealand - altogether, with no special rights for
any one group over any other. This is exactly what the Maori Tiriti O Waitangi says in Article II. All underlining of quotes added.

So, in answer to Mr. Langton‟s „so what?‟… let me ask him a question…If, as you almost acknowledge, the Littlewood Treaty is the
final English draft of the treaty, then for what insane reason are we using an illegitimate, non-treaty, English text, based upon a
defective, superseded draft from the day before, in all of our legislation? Furthermore, why has that defective 3rd of February English
wording eclipsed, supplanted and replaced the true treaty wording, as found in Te Tiriti O Waitangi?

In answer to Mr. Langton‟s comment that „It was not signed‟…Hobson‟s government intended that no English version ever be
signed by the Maori chiefs. Proffering an English version for the chiefs to sign was tantamount to asking Hobson, in return, to sign a
contract in Cantonese. The English versions were simply rough drafts, leading up to a final draft. After Te Tiriti O Waitangi became a
reality, James Stuart Freeman produced a variety of “Royal Style” English versions, solely for despatch overseas. One of these,
without government sanction, mistakenly found its way to Port Waikato, where some overflow signatures came onto it after Reverend
Maunsell had read the correct Maori text to the assembled chiefs. The chiefs coming forward commenced signing the printed Maori
document, in the meagre two inches of available space at the bottom, but quickly ran out of room. The overflow signatures of the other
32 chiefs ended up on the defective English document, which had not been presented on the day, nor sent to the proceedings by the
government. This was the only such, otherwise innocent, procedural mistake made in the entire treaty presentation incentive, spanning
many months and involving 540 signatory chiefs in many scattered districts.

                                                                                                                                         159
As an archivist and historian Mr. Langton must know that we can trace the whereabouts of the Littlewood treaty „from the present
day to its actual creation‟. Working from the day of its creation, it went from Busby to Hobson to Williams to Hobson to Clendon
(via Shortland) to Henry Littlewood (solicitor) to Littlewood‟s descendants to Beryl Needham (Henry Littlewood‟s great-
granddaughter) to the Auckland War Memorial Museum to John Littlewood (Henry Littlewood‟s great-grandson) to the National
Archives. The more recent dates when it changed hands are known exactly or the more remote dates are easy to calculate to within a
small interval in time. We have a fair idea how long it remained in the possession of any one individual from its inception through to
the present day.

The fact that the Littlewood Treaty existed as a treaty draft, on the 4th of February 1840, before the Maori version was even created, is
also supported by a view expressed by Dr. Paul Moon, who wrote the following to historian, Ross Baker:
„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).

In Dr. Paul Moon‟s book released in November 2004, one can only interpret that there is acknowledgement of the Littlewood Treaty
being the lost final draft of the Treaty of Waitangi. Moon & Biggs write, in muted, half-hidden tones:
„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).

Moon and Biggs at least acknowledge that the Littlewood Treaty text is the final draft wording, although their description of „a hand-
written copy of the Treaty in English copied from Busby‟s copy of the final draft‟ is a bit confusing. Either Wilkes or his
secretary copied directly from Busby‟s final draft for despatch number 64 to the U.S. Secretary of State. Thereafter, yet another copy
was recorded in the U.S.S. Vincennes‟ letter book, which is now in the collection of the Kansas Historical Society of Topeka, Kansas.
In all, four copies of the final draft are known to exist, although the one sent in Wilkes‟ despatch 64 to Washington D.C. has not, as
yet, been viewed by this researcher.

In the end it all gets a bit academic and it seems like there‟s a lot of unnecessary nit-picking nonsense being bantered about amongst
our acknowledged experts. The bottom line for ordinary New Zealanders is that we want our true treaty wording back. Up until
about 1975 we thought we knew, quite definitively, what our treaty meant. As a consequence, all of us coexisted, quite happily, in an



                                                                                                                                     160
egalitarian society, under a mantel of protections guaranteed to “all the people of New Zealand” by the Treaty of Waitangi / Tiriti O
Waitangi compact.

                                                                Next

                                                             Chapter 11

       CLENDON‟S DESPATCH NO. 6 TO THE U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE ON THE 20th OF FEBRUARY 1840

After the Treaty of Waitangi became a reality by the adherence of the chiefs who affixed their signatures to the Maori version
parchment document, Clendon had a duty to inform his superiors about a British colony in progress in New Zealand. In order to make
up a complete despatch he needed documents that clearly portrayed all that was happening in an official sense. The opportunity to
assemble the required, relevant materials for such a despatch availed itself after the 17th of February 1840, when C.M.S. Mission
printer, William Colenso, produced 200 printed copies of the official Maori text of the treaty.

We know that government officials, and probably Hobson himself, visited Clendon on the 17th of February 1840. On this day
Clendon signed the Treaty of Waitangi parchment in behalf of Chief Pomaré II and then affixed his own signature beside that of the
chief. The treaty parchment, also bearing 78 recent signatures from the chiefs of the Hokianga and due to be taken to Thames within
the following week, was kept safe by Hobson‟s government. It would seem likely that it was on this occasion that Clendon was given
newly printed Tiriti O Waitangi sheets, fresh off the C.M.S. Mission press that day. Had an official English text been printed also,
this would have been an opportune time to acquire it.




The section on the Treaty of Waitangi where James Reddy Clendon signed in behalf of his friend, Chief Pomaré II. Clendon
wrote: Feby. 17th, 1840. Pomaré signature. James R Clendon.



                                                                                                                                  161
Clendon, probably, already had in his possession copies of two printed Proclamations, which Hobson had read at Kororareka Church
on the 30th of January 1840. These spelled out the intricacies of British intent in the region and described Hobson‟s commission from
Queen Victoria. To these documents Clendon was now able to add the official Maori text of the compact or contract that the chiefs
had entered into with the Crown.
It seems to have been Clendon‟s expectation that an official English version of the treaty would be produced for general circulation by
Hobson‟s government. No such document was ever made and the printed Maori text remains, to this day, the only official treaty
document that was ever published. In lieu of such a document in English being printed simultaneously to the Maori text, Clendon was
obliged to draw upon his earlier, personal transcript or notes in order to forward a very representative English version of the treaty to
the United States. Historian, Ian Wards, supported the view that Clendon was integral to the drafting incentive.

We know that Hobson was very anxious to get away to Thames in the Waitemata without delay and expected to go just as soon as the
steady E.S.E. wind abated sufficiently to allow H.M.S Herald to leave the harbour. It seems likely that he was in attendance to meet
with Pomaré II, but did not bring the final English draft with him, as it was not needed.

Clendon had to exercise the caution his responsible post demanded. He had been a participant at the drafting session and knew the
wording of the text up until that point of development when he had last seen and transcribed it on the 4th of February 1840.
But the English treaty text was in a constant state of metamorphosis and was being reviewed for many hours beyond the time Clendon
had sat in on its creation. Perhaps Reverend Henry Williams found this or that wording too cumbersome to convey in the Maori
tongue and had asked for a modification of the English text? Clendon could not know this, and yet it was his responsibility to send the
official English text, such that it could be placed within the files of the United States government or could be printed in official gazette
notices.

We can safely state that, for one reason or another, Clendon was unable to get the final English text from Hobson on the 17th of
February, but would await Hobson‟s return from Thames and then acquire it. Clendon was, therefore, obliged to call his personal notes
from February 4th 1840 a close „translation‟ until such time as an English text, declared “official”, was secured from Lieutenant
Governor Hobson.
Now that Clendon knew the date when a treaty was secured, he could add that to his transcript. His records from the last treaty
drafting session would indicate, with considerable clarity, what the Treaty of Waitangi said and meant in both languages.
It is at this later interval, beyond February 17th 1840, that Dr. Phil Parkinson now maintains the Littlewood Treaty was created, by
Busby, as a “back-translation” from the Maori text, at the request of Clendon.

Dr Parkinson has mildly rebuked my approach to arriving at some facts as „injudicious reliance on that flawed syllogism "Potuit,
docuit, ergo fuit" (It could be so, it ought to be so, therefore it is so)‟. By the same yardstick, it will be interesting to see what facts

                                                                                                                                         162
Dr. Parkinson and his colleagues can produce, which are not based upon wishful thinking and pure supposition, to prove that the
author of the Littlewood Treaty document did not intend to write that 4th of February 1840 date at the end of the text.

Dr. Parkinson and others are inferring that James Busby, the historically recognised author or acting, temporary secretary, who penned
the final English draft, made a major blunder when he wrote the 4th of February 1840. Both Dr. Parkinson and his colleague, Dr.
Claudia Orange, are suggesting that Busby had forgotten, less than two weeks after the momentous and memorable treaty assembly at
Waitangi, involving over one thousand participants and spectators, that the signing proceedings had occurred on the 6th of February.

Somehow, according to logic proffered or embraced by our historians, Busby now, or in a momentary lapse of concentration, thought
that the most spectacular and colourful two-day event ever witnessed in New Zealand had drawn to a successful conclusion on the 4th
of February. More than anyone, Busby had the date of the proceedings firmly fixed in his mind, as he was the author of the original
invitations sent out to the chiefs. A back-translation of his letter to Tamati Waka Néné, which was the general letter format to all of the
invited chiefs, says:

„Of the thirtieth day of January, 1840.
My Dear Friend,
Here again is mine to you. It is that a ship of war has now arrived with a Chief on board, who is from the Queen of England, to
be a Governor for us. Now he desires that there shall be assembled together all the Chiefs of the Confederation of New
Zealand on Wednesday [February 5th] of next holy week, so that they may see him. I therefore say unto you, friend, that you
come here to Waitangi, to my home here, to this gathering. For you yourself are a Chief of that Confederation.
That is all, mine ends.
From me, your dear friend,
Busby.‟

Staying utterly flexible on this point, would it even matter if the document was written by Busby on the 4th of February or by Busby,
reproducing an exact copy of the final draft, on or just after the 17th of February? Busby wrote the final English draft, so knew both its
content and the day it was produced.

      Why would Busby need to, clumsily, provide Clendon with a “back-translation” from the Maori treaty text when he was in
       possession of, or fully conversant with, the final English draft wording?
      Why would Clendon need Busby to do a back-translation from the Maori anyway, when Clendon had been in the country
       longer than Busby and, undoubtedly, spoke Maori equally as well or better?



                                                                                                                                       163
The hypothesis that the Littlewood Treaty first originated two weeks after its recorded date, is historically unsustainable. It almost
smacks of a certain desperation to destroy the innate credibility of the Littlewood Treaty document at any cost by conjuring up
improbable scenarios to counter the fact that it was written on the 4th of February 1840.

We know that Clendon, on the 20th of February 1840, did not have in his possession anything that he could categorically state was the
“official” English text. He had his own transcript (notes) of something he could reasonably guarantee was very close to the finalised
draft wording, but the best he could do, at that moment in time, was to call it a „translation‟ and a reasonably accurate portrayal of
what the Maori text said.

In qualifying his position, Clendon wrote the following to U.S. Secretary of State, John Forsyth:
„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 of 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.‟

Here‟s what Clendon sent in despatch no. 6 to the U.S.A. on February 20th 1840:




                                                                                                                                         164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
 BUSBY‟S FINAL DRAFT …4th of February 1840                CLENDON‟S DESPATCH... 20th of February 1840

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

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

                     Article first                                             Article First

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

                   Article second                                            Article Second

 The Queen of England confirms and guarantees to           The Queen of England confirms and guarantees to

                                                                                                                    172
   the chiefs & tribes and to all the people of New  the chiefs and the Tribes and to all the people of New
Zealand the possession of their lands, dwellings and Zealand, the possession of their Lands, dwellings and
        all their property. But the chiefs of the           all their property. But the Chiefs of the
   Confederation and the other chiefs grant to the      Confederation and the other Chiefs grant to the
chiefs Queen, the exclusive right of purchasing such Queen, the exclusive rights of purchasing such Lands
 land as the proprietors thereof may be disposed to as the proprietors thereof may be disposed to sell at
 sell at such prices as shall be agreed upon between   such prices as may be agreed upon between them
  them and the persons appointed by the Queen to      and the person appointed by the Queen to purchase
                  purchase from them.                                      from them.

                   Article Third                                          Article Third

  In return for the cession of the Sovreignty to the  In return for the cession of the Sovereignty to the
Queen, the people of New Zealand shall be protected Queen, the people of New Zealand shall be protected
    by the Queen of England and the rights and           by the Queen of England and the rights and
   privileges of British subjects will be granted to privileges of British subjects will be granted to them.
                         them.-
                        Signed,                                     signed, William Hobson
                   William Hobson                              Consul and Lieutenant Governor.
             Consul & Lieut. Governor.
                                                        Now we the Chiefs of the Confederation of the
Now we the chiefs of the Confederation of the United      United Tribes of New Zealand assembled at
tribes of New Zealand being assembled at Waitangi, Waitangi, and we the other tribes of New Zealand,
   and we the other chiefs of New Zealand having       having understood the meaning of these articles,
 understood the meaning of these articles, accept of   accept of them and agree to them all. In witness
             them and agree to them all.                   whereof our Names or Marks are affixed.
In witness whereof our names or marks are affixed.
       Done at Waitangi on the 4th Feb. 1840.-       Done at Waitangi on the Sixth day of February in the
                                                     year of our Lord one Thousand Eight Hundred and
                                                                              Forty.




                                                                                                               173
It can be readily seen that Clendon possessed something very close to Busby‟s 4th of February 1840 English draft and sent it to the
United States in his despatch No. 6.

As stated, Clendon‟s English treaty version was penned on W. Tucker 1833 paper from exactly the same stock as Busby‟s final
English draft. Clendon had, obviously, transcribed his own copy of the developing final draft wording on February 4th, in anticipation
of this despatch to the United States at a later date, should Hobson‟s government be successful in securing a treaty.

Clendon‟s despatch No. 6, complete with printed material from the C.M.S. Mission press, was very representative of similarly batched
materials also sent to Britain and Australia in February by Hobson, as well as to the United States by Commodore Charles Wilkes in
April 1840. Letter text within the Wilkes‟ despatch refers to the printed Proclamations and Treaty materials contained therein, some of
which have survived within the U.S.S. Vincennes‟ letter book records. Alternatively, the handwritten or printed Maori sheets and
Proclamations sent in Hobson‟s despatches to his superiors, were repatriated to New Zealand in the 1940‟s and survive in pristine
condition within the National Archives of New Zealand (see Vol. G - 30/1 or Vol. G - 36/1).

As stated, Clendon could not, on the 20th of February, guarantee that his English transcript version was still 100% officially precise
down to the last “jot and tittle”, sufficient for a gazette notice in an American newspaper, so called it a „translation‟ Due to no
English printed version becoming available on the 17th of February, when the Maori Tiriti O Waitangi was printed for official
distribution, Clendon was obliged to write the temporary disclaimer to U.S. Secretary of State John Forsyth on the 20th of February:

„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.‟
In lieu of an official printed English copy being issued, the original, finalised draft by Busby, which was in the possession of Hobson,
would certainly suffice.

Clendon was as good as his word and did apply „officially‟ to the Hobson government for „a copy and translation of the Treaty for
the purpose of sending it to the Government of the United States.‟ Head Archivist of the National Archives, Kathryn Patterson,
wrote the following to John Littlewood in October 1992:

„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



                                                                                                                                      174
him with the translation. We have had a search made of the Clendon manuscripts held in the 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).

After sending his transcribed treaty version to the United States on the 20th of February 1840 Clendon made the official request to
Hobson‟s government for a „copy and translation‟, just as he had promised the U.S. Secretary of State he would do. Sometime before
the 18th of March the requested items were „placed in [his] hands‟ by the Acting Colonial Secretary, Willoughby Shortland.

Clendon was now in a position to see exactly what the final English draft had settled out to be. It had remained true to his own
transcript, with no change.

Sovereignty of New Zealand was being ceded district by district and it was unknown, in early 1840, just how much of the country
would, ultimately, become part of the British colony. The Americans, who had a thriving whaling industry in New Zealand waters,
needed to stay abreast of what treaties were signed and districts ceded to „Her Britannic Majesty‟.
This could decide which ports were visited for provisions and repairs, as the whalers were averse to paying port fees or customs levies
to the British Government. Also, chiefs in certain districts might have entertained the alternative prospect of joining the United States,
which was a possibility considered by Commodore, Charles Wilkes.




                                                                                                                                       175
176
Clendon‟s response to Willoughby Shortland, acknowledging receipt of the treaty documentation and requesting that he be
kept informed regarding any further treaties entered into.

In the letter that Clendon wrote back to the Colonial Secretary he acknowledges receipt of the items he‟d requested, but very formally
requests to be kept informed about any and all treaties entered into. His letter to Colonial Secretary Shortland states:

„A document purporting to be a copy of a treaty made between the native Chiefs of New Zealand and Her Britannic Majesty‟s
Commissioner, having been placed in my hands, I have the honour to request that I may be furnished by Her Majesty‟s
Government with a copy of any existing Treaty with the said chiefs, that the same may be forwarded to the Government of the
United States of America‟ (Alexander Turnbull Library qMS-1603). Underlining added.

Clendon is, in Consular language, acknowledging here that a copy of a treaty has been „placed in my hands‟ and requests that any
further treaties, extant or yet to be entered into with the district chiefs, be furnished to him for despatch to the United States.

Acquiring Busby‟s final draft document would have posed no problems for Clendon after Hobson returned paralysed to the Bay of
Islands on March 6th. One can safely presume that it was left with the Colonial Secretary once Hobson knew Clendon needed it.
Whereas Hobson had earlier rented Busby‟s two-room cottage at Kororareka in anticipation of the arrival of his wife and children, his
recent stroke had changed his plans dramatically. The two-room cottage became the permanent office of Willoughby Shortland, who
wore several hats: as Acting Colonial Secretary, Police Magistrate and, now, Acting Lieutenant-Governor.




                                                                                                                                   177
Some samples of what Clendon received from the Hobson government as per his official request. To the left is seen part of a
handwritten Maori text composed of five pages. It appears to be in the handwriting of the official translator, Reverend Henry
Williams and is signed off by James Stuart Freeman, with the words “True Copy” above Freeman‟s name. This five-page
document still survives amongst the Clendon House Papers, Special Collections, Auckland Public Library. To the right is seen
Busby‟s final English draft, Littlewood Treaty document, which came into Clendon‟s possession before the 18th of March
1840 and remained with him for many years thereafter, until given to his solicitor, Henry Littlewood. With receipt of these two
documents from Willoughby Shortland, Clendon had the “official treaty and translation” that he‟d requested. He‟d asked for
nothing less than the official Maori & English texts. Busby‟s handwritten, final English draft was supplied, accompanied by a
handwritten Maori text, seemingly from Henry Williams, the official translator.

                                                             Next

                                                         Chapter 12

                                 COMMODORE WILKES VISITS THE BAY OF ISLANDS



                                                                                                                           178
About two weeks after receiving the official documentation, Clendon was able to make copies of these items, „placed in my hands‟,
available to United States Antarctic Explorer, Commodore Charles Wilkes, who sailed into the Bay of Islands aboard his flagship,
Vincennes, on March 29th 1840.




Commodore Charles Wilkes, leader of the American Antarctic Expeditionary squadron of six ships. Wilkes visited the Bay of
Islands on March 29th 1840 and remained until mid-April. Upon arrival he requested that U.S. Consul James Reddy Clendon
supply him with official treaty-related materials in both English and Maori for despatch to the United States Government.


                                                                                                                                179
Wilkes arrived from N.S.W. Australia, to rejoin two of the somewhat battered vessels (Porpoise and Flying Fish) of his Antarctic
expeditionary squadron, lying at anchor and undergoing repairs in Kororareka Bay. Commodore Wilkes had heard from sources in
N.S.W. that a British colony in progress was underway in New Zealand and about the Proclamations read by Hobson on the 30th of
January 1840. A U.S. Lieutenant, seemingly from Wilkes‟ squadron, who had come over as an observer from Australia on the British
store ship, Samuel Winter, was staying with Clendon on the 3rd of February and also attended the Treaty of Waitangi assembly on the
5th of February 1840. Perhaps the Lieutenant managed to acquire copies of the Proclamations read 5-days before and returned them to
his commander. Commodore Wilkes was particularly concerned about the effect British annexation would have upon the lucrative
American whaling industry in the region and wished to send a despatch to the U.S. Secretary of State describing local political
happenings. In order to create an informed despatch he would have to rely heavily on Clendon for intelligence and official
documentation.




The Antarctic Expeditionary squadron of six ships, including Wilkes‟ flagship, Vincennes, together at a South American port
just prior to their dangerous exploration of the Southern Continent. Later, after damaging their vessels in collisions with pack
ice, the ships, Porpoise and Flying Fish limped to the preassigned rendezvous port of the Bay of Islands, New Zealand, in


                                                                                                                                180
March 1840. The U.S.S. Vincennes later joined them on the 29th of March 1840, when Wilkes sailed from Australia to find the
lost ships of his scattered and battered squadron.

Wilkes wrote to the U.S Secretary of State:

„I have the honor to inform you of my arrival at this place on the 29th March after 10 days passage from Sydney N.S. Wales.
Previous to my arrival here I had been informed of the different proclamations made by the Gov. of N.S. Wales in the name of
the Queen, extending the authority of the British realm over these islands and the appointment of a Lt. Governor in case the
chiefs were willing to sign over their rights to her Majesty.
On my arrival here I lost no time to inquire into the actual state of these islands and what acts had taken place and how for the
authority of the British Govt. had gone, and for the information of the Govt., I now give the result of it.
On addressing the U.S. Consul J.R. Clendon Esq. on the subject I received from him a letter, a copy of which is hereto
annexed marked A.
I likewise have obtained a copy of the Treaty (a translation) also annexed and marked B & C in which the Govt. have all the
information that has yet been made public‟ (See Papers of Charles Wilkes 1837-1847, U.S.S. Vincennes letter book copy of
despatch Number 64, Microfilm 1262, University of Auckland Library pp. 163-164, originals at the Kansas Historical Society,
Topeka, Kansas, U.S.A).

It can be seen that Clendon supplied Wilkes with treaty related materials, including the official English "translation".

As stated, Clendon had, about six weeks earlier, promised his superiors that he would apply to Captain Hobson directly for the official
„copy and translation‟ versions when the Lieutenant Governor returned from Thames. Unfortunately, Hobson suffered a stroke on
March 1st while at Thames and returned to the bay paralysed and severely incapacitated, aboard H.M.S Herald, on March 6th 1840.
It‟s quite obvious that Hobson always carried the final English draft of the treaty on his person and read it out at gatherings where
there were settlers present. The attendance of reasonably large numbers of European settlers at the treaty assembles had, certainly,
been the case at Waitangi and Hokianga districts. After March 1st Hobson had no hope of using the final draft document himself and a
whole new programme, related to chosen government appointees conducting treaty assemblies and signing ceremonies in behalf of the
government, had to be devised by Acting Lieutenant-Governor, Willoughby Shortland. He also dealt with Clendon‟s request.

On The 11th of March Felton Mathew, Surveyor General, and James Stuart Freeman, Hobson‟s personal secretary, visited Clendon at
his home. Mathew returned to visit Clendon, with whom he had „some business‟ to conduct, on the 13th of March. It might be of
great significance that on this same day Felton Mathew‟s deputy, William Cornwallis Symonds, received his official Maori copy of



                                                                                                                                   181
the treaty for signing at Manukau, Port Waikato and Kawhia (see: The unpublished letters of Felton Mathew to Sarah Mathew,
Special Collections, Auckland Public Library. See also: Captain William Hobson, by Guy K. Schofield, pg. 109).

Clendon well understood that the only official treaty was a document in the Maori language. He, therefore, called the Maori version
the „Treaty‟ and the English version the „Translation‟, although these titles were not, altogether, appropriate. The Maori version was,
of course, the actual translation, having been derived from Busby‟s final English draft of the 4th of February 1840.

Semantics and personal definitions aside, Clendon simply wanted Hobson‟s government to supply official English and Maori versions
for despatch purposes and he received them prior to the 18th of March, or about two weeks before Commodore Wilkes arrived in the
bay aboard the U.S.S. Vincennes on the 29th of March. On the 3rd of April 1840, Clendon made the required documents available to
Commodore Charles Wilkes. One item supplied was a back-translation of the Maori text by Captain Gordon Brown. Being a cautious
military man with United States vested interests at heart, Wilkes, seemingly, wanted to ascertain that the Maori version did, indeed,
say what the British claimed it said. A copy of the Gordon Brown document survives amongst the Clendon House Papers at Special
Collections, Auckland Public Library.

The following pages, taken directly from microfilm images show what Wilkes was given, upon official request, by U.S. Consul James
Reddy Clendon. The original papers survive in the collection of the Kansas Historical Society. A second set of treaty related materials,
transcribed by Wilkes, was despatched by him on the 5th of April 1840 to Washington D.C.

The first page shown (93) is a transcript of Captain Gordon Brown‟s back-translation of the official Maori text. The original document
by Brown survives amongst the Clendon House Papers, Special Collections, Auckland Public Library. It would appear that Wilkes
asked for impartial verification that the printed Maori treaty back-translated to the official English text, as supplied by Clendon. The
Gordon Brown text runs through page 142 of the U.S.S. Vincennes‟ letter book to midway down page 143.

At this point the U.S.S. Vincennes‟ letter book recommences with the official English text and calls it the „Translation‟. It will be
remembered that Clendon applied, officially, to the Hobson Government for „a copy and translation of the Treaty for the purpose
of sending it to the Government of the United States.‟ He, subsequently, was sent a handwritten copy of the Maori Tiriti O
Waitangi, penned personally for him by Reverend Henry Williams (?). This document, supplied to satisfy Clendon‟s official request,
was signed by James Stuart Freeman as a “True Copy”.

But Clendon had also asked for the official English text, which he called the „translation‟. This was supplied along with the official
Maori „copy‟ By giving Clendon the two requested documents, Hobson had fulfilled his diplomatic obligations to the Consulate of the
United States of America.

                                                                                                                                    182
A very careful reading of the official „translation‟ supplied by U.S. Consul, James Reddy Clendon to Commodore Charles Wilkes,
shows that Wilkes‟ secretary transcribed Busby‟s final draft (the Littlewood Treaty). The U.S.S Vincennes‟ secretary went so far as
to deliberately copy known writing errors of text and spelling, which are only found on Busby‟s final draft. In doing so, he
demonstrated beyond any doubt, that the English document supplied by Clendon was none other than the document we now call “The
Littlewood Treaty”.

Although we have not, as yet, been able to access a copy of Wilkes‟ despatch No. 64 from the U.S. authorities in Washington D.C.,
the U.S.S. Vincennes‟ letter book records precisely what was sent by Wilkes on the 5th of April 1840.




                                                                                                                                    183
184
185
186
187
  BUSBY‟S FINAL DRAFT …4th of February 1840                       WILKES‟ DESPATCH 64 TREATY ... 3rd of April
                                                                                            1840.
 Her Majesty Victoria, Queen of England in Her gracious                          Translation of the Treaty
 consideration for the chiefs and people of New Zealand,         Her Majesty Victoria, Queen of England in her gracious
    and her desire to preserve to them their land and to          consideration for the chiefs and people of New Zealand
maintain peace and order amongst them, has been pleased            and Her desire to preserve to them their lands and to
 to appoint an officer to treat with them for the cession of    maintain peace and order amongst them has been pleased
     the Sovreignty of their country and of the islands          to appoint an officer to treat with them for the cession of
adjacent to the Queen. Seeing that many of Her Majesty‟s        their lands country and the islands adjacent to the Queen
    subjects have already settled in the country and are         seeing that many of Her Majesty‟s subjects have already
    constantly arriving; And that it is desirable for their     settled in this country and are constantly arriving and that
    protection as well as the protection of the natives to     itis desirable for the protection of the Natives to establish a
           establish a government amongst them.                                     Govt. amongst them.

Her Majesty has accordingly been pleased to appoint me
   William Hobson a captain in the Royal Navy to be             Her Majesty has accordingly been pleased to appoint me
 Governor of such parts of New Zealand as may now or              William Hobson a Captain of the Royal Navy to be
 hereafter be ceided to her Majesty and proposes to the         Governor of such parts of New Zealand as may now or
chiefs of the Confederation of the United Tribes of New         hereafter be ceided to Her Majesty and proposes to the
 Zealand and the other chiefs to agree to the following         chiefs of the confederationof the United Tribes of New
                        articles.-                               Zealand and the other chiefs to agree to the following
                                                                                         articles
                        Article first
                                                                                        Article First
The chiefs of the Confederation of the United Tribes and
 the other chiefs who have not joined the confederation,        The chiefs of the confederation of the United Tribes and
     cede to the Queen of England for ever the entire            the other chiefs who have not joined the confederation
               Sovreignty of their country.                          cede to the Queen of England forever the entire
                                                                               Sovreignty of their country.
                      Article second
                                                                                      Article Second
  The Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the
 chiefs & tribes and to all the people of New Zealand the        The Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the

                                                                                                                                 188
        possession of their lands, dwellings and all their property.     chiefs and tribes and to all the people of N Zealand the
         But the chiefs of the Confederation and the other chiefs      possession of their lands, dwellings and all their property.
             grant to the chiefs Queen, the exclusive right of           But the chiefs of the confederation and the other chiefs
         purchasing such land as the proprietors thereof may be        grant to the chiefs Queen the exclusive right of purchasing
          disposed to sell at such prices as shall be agreed upon       such lands as the proprietors thereof may be disposed to
        between them and the persons appointed by the Queen to          sell, at such prices as shall be agreed upon between them
                           purchase from them.                         and the person apptd by the Queen to purchase from them.

                               Article Third                                                  Article Third

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

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


                                                                                                                                      189
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 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 4th known final draft treaty text, sent by Wilkes as despatch 64 to Washington D.C., (which the U.S.S Vincennes‟ letter book
records as having been sent on April 5th 1840) should still survive in the U.S National Archives.

On April 3rd 1840 Clendon gave a general account of recent political events in New Zealand in order to bring Commodore Wilkes
fully up to date. This was in response to Wilkes‟ direct enquiry „into the actual state of these islands and what acts had taken place
and how for the authority of the British Govt. had gone, and for the information of the Govt.‟ Clendon wrote:

„In reply to your letter of yesterday I have to inform you that Capt. W Hobson, R.N. arrived here on the 29th Jany. [last?] in
H.M.S. Herald and that on the following day the two Proclamations now enclosed were made. During the next week meetings
with some of the chiefs were held by Capt. Hobson where the Treaty (of which I have forwarded you a copy) was signed by a
few chiefs, subsequently Capt. Hobson and suit visited Hokianga and the Thames and obtained a few signatures at other
places - hitherto these are the only proceedings which have taken place relative to any cession of rights by the chiefs of New
Zealand to the British Crown.
Referring to the above the other apparent reasons taken by Capt. Hobson to establish the British authority here are the
holding a court of session at Kororarika which is in active operation, having a strong police force under its control. The
formation of a General Post for N. Zealand and the appointment of various Govt. officers for New Zealand by his Excellency
the Governor of New South Wales.

                                                                                                                                         190
It is however to be remarked that no laws relative to the mode or form of Govt. intended to be pursued in the colony have as
yet been published -
I have the honor to be & c
James R. Clendon
U.S. Consul

U.S. Ship Vincennes
Bay of Islands N. Zealand
April 3rd 1840.

In the final analysis, we see a plausible chronology of events unravelling, with respondent, Clendon acting very responsibly and
attempting to provide his superiors in Washington D.C., or Commodore Charles Wilkes, with accurate information. When Clendon
was slightly unsure of the official status of his despatch number 6, English treaty transcript (20th of February 1840), he said he would
apply officially for a copy and translation of the treaty directly from Hobson. This he did and Acting Colonial Secretary, Willoughby
Shortland, fulfilled his request. Before the 18th of March 1840 Clendon came into possession of the final draft document that Hobson,
plausibly, carried on his person or in his travels and was able to make this available to Commodore Charles Wilkes about two weeks
thereafter.

So, how did Henry Littlewood end up with Busby‟s final English draft of the treaty?

The final English draft original document, once supplied, remained with Clendon, thereafter, and was never returned to the
government.
In later years (1856), at least, and conceivably much earlier, Henry Littlewood was James Reddy Clendon‟s solicitor and was
employed to do conveyancing work for Clendon. Some receipts still exist amongst the Clendon House Papers, showing payment
being made by Clendon to Littlewood for completion of legal work. These can be viewed at Special Collections, Auckland Public
Library.




                                                                                                                                     191
A receipt issued by Henry Littlewood to James Reddy Clendon, dating to 1856, for work in account of the will of John Martin.
Littlewood charged Clendon £3. 3/-. 0d. for legal services. The pedigree of the final treaty draft from Busby-to-Hobson-to-
Clendon-to-Littlewood is, therefore, clear and impeccable.



                                                                                                                         192
Another, more unlikely possibility that should be considered relates to the fact that that Henry Littlewood was a practising solicitor in
Auckland around the time Hobson died there on September 10th 1842. Did Eliza Hobson lodge important, original historical
documents, related to New Zealand‟s Treaty of Waitangi, with Littlewood‟s firm prior to her departure to England?

Another opportunity for the acquisition of some salvaged documents might have arisen when Hobson‟s Auckland mansion, the seat of
Government, burnt down in 1848. Henry Littlewood was a practising solicitor in Auckland during 1841 & also 1848-49. Littlewood
might have taken legal trust custody of some official documents. Also, in 1841 & 1842 Governor Hobson initiated a period of
intensive lawmaking, with the creation of his new Legislative Council and was using the expertise of Auckland‟s judges, lawyers and
solicitors.

                                                                  Next

                                                               Chapter 13

                          HOBSON, BUSBY & WILLIAMS DID THEIR JOBS VERY ADEQUATELY

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).

Certain New Zealand historians have been anything but kind in their estimation of the abilities of Lieutenant-Governor William
Hobson, British Resident, James Busby and C.M.S. Senior Missionary, Reverend Henry Williams. Some seem almost unable to
mention the names of these three individuals without succumbing to the temptation of attaching derogatory labels and taking sarcastic
swipes at these important founding fathers.




                                                                                                                                      193
                   .

The author by the grave of Governor William Hobson at Grafton Bridge Cemetery, Symonds Street, Auckland. In the past
thirty years Hobson‟s character has been much maligned by certain historians. For Hobson, we‟re often reminded of his
„modest‟ abilities or „humble‟ intellect, etc.
Governor Hobson, Resident Busby and Reverend Williams are sometimes made to look like the 3-stooges…Moe, Larry and
Curly. Hobson, especially, is portrayed as an inept, bungling executive who didn‟t properly check the legal implications of
what Busby wrote into the English Treaty of Waitangi draft. We‟re led to believe that, because of Hobson‟s supposed
inattention to detail, he didn‟t achieve his objective of having sovereignty ceded to Queen Victoria.
Photo: courtesy of “Harry” Harrison.

                                                                                                                              194
Busby, supposedly, forgot to mention any rights for the settlers when he wrote Article II of the treaty, despite the fact that Hobson had
travelled halfway around the world with a commission from Queen Victoria, specifically to secure those rights.

Reverend Henry Williams has been variously portrayed as a very poor translator who really muffed the translation from the English to
the Maori or, as one leading historian now mischievously suggests, deliberately conspired to mistranslate the treaty in order to stop the
British from achieving their objective.

Hobson was a man of integrity, empathy and very reasonable ability, who had come from a distinguished career as a Captain in the
British Royal Navy. His exploits in dealing with pirates in the Caribbean and displays of uncompromising courage in the face of death
when captured became legendary.

Captain William Hobson first arrived in New Zealand aboard H.M.S Rattlesnake on the 27th of May 1837, to help quell the tribal
warfare that had broken out between Titore and Pomaré II, in which the settlers were threatened. Marianne Williams, the wife of
Reverend Henry Williams, described Hobson as:

„a thin, pleasing man, said to be the original of „Tom Cringle‟ [a popular, daring but fictional maritime hero, who fought pirates in
the Caribbean region] of „The Log‟ [a book released in 1834 by Michael Scott] (see Te Wiremu, by Lawrence M. Rogers, pg. 135).

„When Hobson left St. Helena at last he had been at sea on continuous duty for thirteen years and by then he had been made a
first lieutenant. In 1821, Hobson commanded the sloop Whim, assigned the task of attacking pirates in the West Indies and it
was there that he met the novelist Captain Marryat, furnishing that writer with material for many of his sea stories. Michael
Scott, another novelist, made Hobson the hero of a somewhat famous yarn, “Tom Cringle‟s Log” which was said to be, in
reality, an account of Hobson‟s West Indian adventures. He and his crew were captured by pirates in 1821, but released after
a week of ill treatment. He was captured again in July 1823 while commanding a small flotilla attacking pirate strongholds. He
made a daring escape and continued with his operations; the pirate chief who had captured him in 1821 was routed and driven
to his death. During his West Indian service Hobson was afflicted by yellow fever three times, and suffered recurrent
headaches for the rest of his life‟ (Extracted, in part, from a series of articles in the Waterford News Aug 12/ Sept 16, 1938;
from The Oxford Illustrated History of New Zealand, and from Hobson, William 1792 - 1842, by K.A. Simpson, also Dictionary
of New Zealand Biography).

Hobson‟s major impediment, upon arrival in New Zealand, was that he was already quite ill, as he‟d never fully recovered from his
earlier bouts with yellow fever. He was very susceptible to stress and Governor George Gipps‟ choice of Captain Nias to cooperate
with Hobson and his staff, in all of their transportation requirements in and around New Zealand, appears to have been an almost

                                                                                                                                      195
disastrous decision. Nias, simply, didn‟t want to be there, as he had orders to proceed to a conflict in China and saw Hobson‟s
commission as secondary to his own very important assignment from the admiralty. Perhaps Nias also resented Hobson‟s pseudo folk
hero status, as the inspiration behind the character, “Tom Cringle” of popular pulp fiction fame.
Hobson‟s paralytic stroke, which put the whole treaty signing incentive and hopes for a stable colonial government into severe
jeopardy only 1-month after his arrival in New Zealand, appears to have been fully attributable to, what Hobson would have perceived
as, the obstreperous attitude of Nias.

Despite this unfortunate clash of personalities, which was stressful, nigh-unto-death for Hobson, he still managed to organise a
programme of writing, then presenting, a clear and concise treaty wording. Had the original texts, in both English and Maori,
remained continuously with us, they were more than adequate to provide a solid foundation upon which a successful bicultural and
egalitarian society could be built.

During most of his first month in New Zealand, Hobson felt like death warmed over. The constant fights with Nias, apart from
sapping Hobson‟s energy, also seemed to have an effect on his self-confidence. At the same time, being outside his own patch, or a
stranger in a strange land, and fully reliant on the missionaries to organise itineraries of where to go and who to see, forced Hobson to
be constantly seeking advice from others. He was trying to organise order out of chaos in an undeveloped country. His situation of
being hopelessly at the mercy of go-betweens to arrange access to the isolated chiefs he needed to talk to, as well as his ever-present
uncertainty related to what could be accomplished next, was the source of some criticism towards Hobson. Felton Mathew writes
concerning events of February 27th 1840.

'Our leader‟s movements - I shall not call them plans, - for he has none - are very feeble and vacillating - And like a man who
is less to his station, he seeks to strengthen his opinion by the judgement of others - and is perpetually seeking what he calls
information, from the missionaries & others, who are the very parties interested in misleading him: And yet he is obstinate as
a pig too, and thinks that no one knows anything but himself'.

And again for March 7th, a week after Hobson had suffered his stroke:

'We have had such an explosion this morning between the two Captains, who are both obstinate, wrongheaded fellows, & as fit
to act together as fire and toe - The quarrel has been very violent, and the consequence has been the framing of a set of
minutes of the conversation that took place, for the purpose of transmitting them to Govn George Gipps - Where this matter
may end, tis impossible to foresee - it may occasion our recall to Sydney - perhaps even to England - the immediate effect in
that the Govn says we must all leave the ship this eveng - Meantime this is the way in which the public service is conducted, by
two men, neither of whom are at all qualified for the duty to which they have been appointed - Nothing but broils have

                                                                                                                                      196
occurred - and the whole affair has been one scene of folly and imbecility from beginning to end - Captn Hobson will kill
himself in six months, if he continues here, as it appears he has determined to do - You will see [from an earlier letter] how I
admired the manly way in which, when he was first attacked [by stroke induced paralysis], he formed at once the resolution of
resigning the Govn and returning to Sydney. No sooner, however, does he become a little better, than he alters his intention,
still clinging to the loaves and fishes/- this perhaps natural; but alas, poor human nature! - Captn Nias has certainly shewn
great want of feeling and much indelicacy in wishing to hurry Hobson out of the ship:- but the latter again is a most
disagreeable person to have anything to do with, and has been in many things much to blame - I do not think that any officer
will serve with him for twelve months - It is very doubtful if I shall do so, for so long a period.'

Generally, Felton Mathew was a little kinder and more forgiving than this, but he had just returned from a horrendous two-week
voyage, often interspersed by terrible, buffeting storms. He‟d seen his exploratory expedition with W.C. Symonds, to the southward,
cancelled because of Hobson‟s stroke and, like James Stuart Freeman, was in painful longing for the company of his wife. He was, by
this point in time, at his wits end and had a frayed, short temper. Mathew wrote on the 2nd of March 1840:

„Poor Freeman too is very anxious about his wife, and looks and is very unwell. - In fact being cooped up in this infernal ship is
playing the very devil with us - and that is plain English or I know not what is‟.

Hobson, upon first arriving in New Zealand, had the foresight to rely upon a few seasoned and experienced delegates to aid him in the
treaty writing incentive. Busby, graciously, jumped into the breach at very short notice, realising that his replacement Consul was
experiencing inspiration-sapping illness and insurmountable difficulties. Within a day or two of concentrated effort, Busby took some
very raw concepts and fashioned them into the basis of a coherent and rational treaty, which largely complied with the written
requirements of the British Colonial Office. His efforts were then laid before other informed and humane peers, who, like himself, had
a record of caring deeply about the rights of the Maori people. The much sought-after approbation of Hobson and Busby‟s
ecclesiastical or secular mentors could not be entertained or won unless the final treaty text was seen to be wholly advantageous to the
protection, betterment, safety and future prosperity of the Maori people, found in their congregations or counted amongst their close,
personal friends*.

*Footnote: Reverend Henry Williams desired very strongly that something be done to bring law, order and protection to the Maori
people and law-abiding settlers alike. „In 1837 he had written to his brother-in-law, enclosing a copy of a petition from the
several British subjects in the Bay of Islands, which had been forwarded to the King. This petition asked for the intervention
of the British Government to control the unruly European element. In his letter Williams wrote: „It is high time that
something be done to check the progress of iniquity committed by a lawless band daringly advancing in wickedness and
outrage, under the assurance that „there is no law in New Zealand‟. Without some immediate interposition on the part of the

                                                                                                                                    197
Government for the protection, our position will become very desperate, as we may expect to be surrounded ere long by a
swarm of rogues and vagabonds, who indeed carry all before them, both as respects the respectable European and also the
natives.‟
In 1838, writing to the Church Missionary Society on the proposals of the New Zealand Association, he said: „The English
Government should take charge of the country, as the guardians of New Zealand…” (See: Te Wiremu, by Lawrence M.
Rogers, pg. 163).

Busby had worked hard as British Resident for seven years by the time Hobson arrived. In the pre-treaty years he strongly supported
„education for Maoris, the founding of a Maori newspaper and, at a time when Maori were selling much of their land, the
setting aside of ample reservations. He proposed also a council of settlers, missionaries and Maoris who would advise the
Resident…Busby had his own salary constantly drained, for during his seven years as Resident, a quarter of it went on
presents to chiefs. It was no wonder he was bankrupt at the end of his appointment‟ (see New Zealand‟s Heritage, Vol. 11, pp
289-290).

During this period he tried to raise the international profile and recognition of the sovereign chiefs of New Zealand, by helping to form
the Confederation of United Chiefs into a unified body and write their Declaration of Independence for them. This 1835 text by
Busby, sent overseas to be published abroad, was translated into Maori by Reverend Henry Williams, with the signatures of the
northern chiefs witnessed by Henry Williams, James Reddy Clendon and George Clarke. This group was Busby‟s support team and all
contributed to the Treaty of Waitangi.
Regarding Busby‟s latter years:
„The final paradox in Busby‟s character is that, although he was New Zealand‟s first public servant, he was also its first
political protester. In words of force and dignity he said, “I hold to be the highest duty to which a citizen can be called to
oppose… the unlawful and unjust acts of persons in power”…Busby edited and financed his own paper, The Aucklander. This
paper survived only two years because, again on principle, Busby would not insert paying advertisements‟ (see New Zealand‟s
Heritage, vol. 11 pg. 291).

As for Reverend Henry Williams, Historian, Dr. Claudia Orange wrote somewhat disparagingly:

„Hobson then asked Henry Williams, a senior CMS missionary, to translate the treaty into Maori, which he did with the help
of his twenty-one-year-old son Edward on the evening of 4 February. Although they were comfortable using the Maori
language, they were not experienced translators; indeed, there were few people with such skills at the time. Henry‟s brother
William might have been a better choice, had he been there.‟ (See An Illustrated History Of The Treaty Of Waitangi, by Claudia
Orange, 2004).

                                                                                                                                     198
This is a very unfair assessment, embraced by some historians, that Henry Williams was not equal to the task and that Reverend
William Williams or Reverend Robert Maunsell should have been chosen as the treaty translators in Henry‟s stead. Certain historians
portray this 17-year-long serving veteran, at the head of the C.M.S organisation, as incompetent, or infer that his assistant son, Edward
Marsh Williams, was an inexperienced boy trying to do a man‟s job. There is nothing in the historical record to support this dismal
estimation of the linguistic skills shared by either Henry or Edward Williams.
Henry Williams had arrived in New Zealand in 1823 when Edward was only about 4-years of age. Young Edward had been raised in a
Nga-Puhi iwi environment and was equally conversant in Maori or English. He was able to composed very eloquent reports in either
language.

In fact all the combined clergy of the day saw the importance of learning the Maori language fluently. They were focused on the
necessity of producing accurate grammars or dictionaries as aids to the constant, on-going translation of religious and other literature
into the Maori tongue. The first important Maori language-aid book produced was Grammar And Vocabulary, by Kendall & Lee,
1820. Chief Hongi Hika was a major contributor to this publication.

„The printing press played a significant part in the rapid progress of the Mission. At the schools the Maoris, old and young,
were taught to read, and they in their turn were ready to teach others. The result was that as time advanced a large number of
Maoris eagerly awaited satisfaction of their new ability. The supply never equalled the demand. Before books could be
printed, translations had to be made and this took time.
The first book printed in Maori was Kendall‟s A Korao No New Zealand or the New Zealander‟s First Book, Being an attempt
to compose some Lessons for the Instructions of the Natives. By 1824 James Shepherd had compiled a vocabulary, translated
some hymns, and was at work translating the Gospels. After the arrival of Henry and William Williams, [1823] all the
members of the Mission met regularly for the study of the language and for translation. Later a Translation Committee was
set up and carried on this work for many years. In 1827 Shepherd had translated some selected passages, with some hymns,
and this was published in Sydney. In 1830 five hundred and fifty copies of a slightly larger selection of Scripture passages were
printed and these were eagerly purchased. Yate, who had gone to Sydney, to see this volume through the press, brought back a
printing press, but it proved unsatisfactory. In 1833 the whole of the Liturgy, two gospels, the Acts of the Apostles and three
Pauline epistles, with some hymns, were printed in Sydney, and the 3,300 volumes printed found ready Maori owners in New
Zealand.
The arrival of Colenso and Wade with the new printing press in December 1834 was welcomed by both missionaries and
Maoris. The printer went to work immediately and in February 1835 the printing of 2,000 copies of William Williams‟s
translation of the Epistle to the Ephesians and Philippians was completed. When Colenso next printed Luke‟s gospel, he could
not bind copies fast enough to meet the demand. By 1836 William Williams had completed a translation of the New Testament
and Prayer Book, of which Colenso completed the printing in December 1837. An edition of 3,000 copies of the Prayer Book

                                                                                                                                      199
was commenced, but demand was so great that 33,000 abridged copies were printed before the complete Liturgy was
published in 1841.
When Maunsell arrived in 1835, he began to share with William Williams the task of translating the whole Bible‟. (See: Te
Wiremu, The Biography of Henry Williams, by Lawrence M. Rogers, pp. 159-160).

By the time of the treaty in 1840, the entire New Testament of the Bible had been translated into Maori under the C.M.S mission
leadership of Reverend Henry Williams:

„On 30 December 1837, Colenso entered in his „Day and Waste Book‟: „Finished printing the New Testament, 5000 copies
demy 8vo., Glory be to God alone!‟ (Quoted in A.G. Bagnall and C.G. Petersen, William Colenso, Wellington 1948, pg. 49).

In these translation efforts, Maori advisors were consulted and the best speakers of Maori to be found amongst the missionaries
collaborated in the ceaseless, intensive production of printed materials. During the treaty-drafting era, Reverend Robert Maunsell was
translating the Old Testament of the Bible into the Maori language. By 1842, after mission fires had destroyed his early Bible
translation manuscripts, he produced Insightful Grammar. He also, finally, succeeded in his second attempt at translating the entire
Old Testament of the Bible into Maori by 1856, although portions of Genesis, Exodus, Numbers and Deuteronomy were
published in 1840.

The Williams family, as a whole, were all very active participants and contributors to Reverend William Williams‟ Dictionary of the
New Zealand Language and a Concise Grammar, 1844. Such works were never solely the efforts of any one individual, but were the
product of collating information from many diverse sources of expertise, with ongoing input by many people over a period of years.
Today it would be nigh on impossible to find English/ Maori linguists of this high calibre, who lived everyday in an environment,
where conversing fluently in the Maori tongue was the norm. During February 1840 Reverend William Colenso was engaged in
printing 500 prayer books, 300 primers and 200 Kupu Ui for the Port Waikato Mission station alone. The seasoned linguists of
the Paihia Mission, under Henry William‟s leadership, had translated all of these items into the Maori tongue for the missionary
schools. During 1840 the C.M.S. Mission press also printed 1000 pamphlets, in 7 batch-lots, for Hobson‟s government, several of
which were translated Maori documents, completed by the missionaries. The C.M.S. Mission charged the government £14. 12/- 7d.
The bill for this bilingual printing and translation work was paid on December 22nd 1840.

„The following items were printed by Colenso in 1840, to the order of the Lieutenant-Governor: The Treaty of Waitangi in
Maori (200), Circular summonsing Natives to Waitangi (100), Proclamation of the Queen‟s authority (100), Proclamation
regarding land purchases (100), Impounding notices (100), Circular to Natives (100), Circular warning natives against buying
army stores (500), three additional printings of the, “Proclamation asserting the Queen‟s Sovereignty over new Zealand” (300)

                                                                                                                                   200
[@ 100 per batch]. The final batch had slightly amended wording. Payment for this Government commissioned work was
received on December 22nd, 1840 and amounted to £14. 12s. 7d‟. (See: Williams, A Bibliography of Printed Maori, 1926. See
also William Colenso, by A.G. Bagnall & G.C. Petersen, 1948 pg. 97).

There were ongoing and unrelenting attempts, during the two decades before 1840, to achieve a high degree of Maori literacy (see A
Missionary Library. Printed Attempts to Instruct the Maori, 1815 - 1845, Journal of the Polynesian Society, LXX (1961), 429 - 49).

Concerning „old Reverend Williams‟, Felton Mathew found him a very personable, friendly, intelligent, shrewd and entertaining travel
companion, although Felton didn‟t always care much for Henry‟s Sunday sermons. In 1835 Reverend Henry Williams was actively
involved in translating Busby‟s Declaration of Independence, in behalf of the Confederation of United Chiefs, which still exists in
his handwriting

For the most part, the criticism related to the translating abilities of Henry and Edward Williams is based upon the mistaken
assumption that the Williams‟, father and son duo were working from Freeman‟s composite, but largely, 3rd of February rough
English draft when they completed the Maori treaty translation. This otherwise, superseded rough draft has, unfortunately, become
our official Treaty of Waitangi, eclipsing and replacing even the Maori Tiriti O Waitangi.

However, the truth is that Henry and Edward worked from an altogether different English draft produced on the 4th of February
1840. Our historians misrepresent the translators, by stating that the following English draft text shown (left column) was the
Williams‟ translation-source for the Maori Tiriti O Waitangi (middle column)… displayed alongside a back-translation of the Maori
language text (right column) from 1869. The only way our grievance industry-aligned historians can legitimise the existence of the
politically preferred, English treaty wording is to belittle the translators by erroneous and derisive commentary. By this ploy it
becomes, solely, the ability and competence of the translators that is called into question and seriously maligned, rather than any
unwanted focus being drawn to, and falling upon the integrity of, the grievance industry preferred English draft that the
translators are, falsely, claimed to have worked from.

Genuine scholars like Ruth Ross, in 1972, were bewildered by claims that Busby‟s 3rd of February composite draft was somehow the
source of the Maori Tiriti O Waitangi and stated, quite bluntly, that this assertion was „palpably incorrect‟.
Alternatively, when dispossessed farmer Allan Titford showed Nga-Puhi elder and historian, Graham Rankin, the Littlewood Treaty
document in the year 2000, Mr. Rankin immediately commented that it‟s wording was exactly the same as the Maori version.

In light of Beryl Needham and her brother, John Littlewood finding Busby‟s final English draft of the Treaty of Waitangi in 1989, the
long-standing puzzle concerning the vast differences in the English and Maori texts is a puzzle no more. It is apparent that the

                                                                                                                                  201
government is using the wrong English version of the treaty in all of its legislation. There is no reason to persist with this insane policy
of elevating James Stuart Freeman‟s composite, largely 3rd of February, rough draft, “Royal Style” version to “official” Treaty of
Waitangi status. This ad-hoc English version is not our Treaty of Waitangi and never has been. There is only one Treaty of
Waitangi and it‟s in the Maori language. Let‟s now compare the texts:

         Composite "Royal Style" version         The original Maori text translated by Translation from the Original Maori
          assembled from early notes by            Reverend Henry Williams and             by, Mr. T.E. Young, Native
          James S Freeman, on 5/2/1840.             Edward Williams 4-5/2/1840.                 Department (1869)

        Her Majesty Victoria Queen of the          Ko Wikitoria te Kuini o Ingarani i        Victoria, Queen of England, in her
         United Kingdom of Great Britain         tana mahara atawai ki nga Rangatira          kind thoughtfulness to the Chiefs
          and Ireland regarding with Her             me nga Hapu o Nu Tirani i tana         and Hapus of New Zealand, and her
       Royal Favour the Native Chiefs and         hiahia hoki kia tohungia ki a ratou o        desire to preserve to them their
        Tribes of New Zealand and anxious           ratou rangatiratanga me to ratou          chieftainship and their land, and
           to protect their just Rights and      wenua, a kia mau tonu hoki te Rongo        that peace may always be kept with
        Property and to secure to them the         ki a ratou me te Atanoho hoki kua        them and quietness, she has thought
       enjoyment of Peace and Good Order         wakaaro ia he mea tika kia tukua mai        it a right thing that a Chief should
              has deemed it necessary in          tetahi Rangatira-hei kai wakarite ki      be sent here as a negotiator with the
        consequence of the great number of        nga Tangata Maori; o Nu Tirani-kia          Maoris of New Zealand - that the
         Her Majesty's Subjects who have          wakaaetia e nga Rangatira Maori; te       Maoris of New Zealand may consent
        already settled in New Zealand and           Kawanatanga o te Kuini ki nga           to the Government of the Queen of
         the rapid extension of Emigration         wahikatoa o te Wenua nei me nga          all parts of this land and the islands,
          both from Europe and Australia         Motu-na te mea hoki he tokomaha ke           because there are many people of
             which is still in progress to        nga tangata o tona Iwi Kua noho ki          her tribe that have settled on this
       constitute and appoint a functionary          tenei wenua, a e haere mai nei.             land and are coming hither.
       properly authorized to treat with the
        Aborigines of New Zealand for the          Na ko te Kuini e hiahia ana kia      Now the Queen is desirous to
            recognition of Her Majesty's         wakaritea te Kawanatanga kia kaua establish the Government, that evil
        Sovereign authority over the whole       ai nga kino e puta mai ki te tangata may not come to the Maoris and the
          or any part of those islands. Her      Maori ki te Pakeha e noho ture kore Europeans who are living without
        Majesty therefore being desirous to                      ana.                                law.
           establish a settled form of Civil
       Government with a view to avert the       Na, kua pai te Kuini kia tukua a hau        Now the Queen has been pleased to

                                                                                                                                        202
evil consequences which must result     a Wiremu Hopihona he Kapitana i te     send me, William Hobson, a Captain
 from the absence of the necessary        Roiara Nawi hei Kawana mo nga        in the Royal Navy, to be Governor to
 Laws and Institutions alike to the        wahi katoa o Nu Tirani e tukua       all the places of New Zealand which
    native population and to Her         aianei, amoa atu ki te Kuini, e mea   may be given up now or hereafter to
subjects has been graciously pleased       atu ana ia ki nga Rangatira o te      the Queen; an he give forth to the
 to empower and to authorize "me        wakaminenga o nga hapu o Nu Tirani     Chiefs of the Assembly of the Hapus
 William Hobson a Captain" in Her         me era Rangatira atu enei ture ka    of New Zealand and other Chiefs the
 Majesty's Royal Navy Consul and                    korerotia nei.                        laws spoken here.
 Lieutenant Governor of such parts
    of New Zealand as may be or                  KO TE TUATAHI                               The First
   hereafter shall be ceded to Her
 Majesty to invite the confederated     Ko nga Rangatira o te wakaminenga       The Chiefs of the Assembly, and all
  and independent Chiefs of New         me nga Rangatira katoa hoki ki hai i    Chiefs also who have not joined the
 Zealand to concur in the following      uru ki taua wakaminenga ka tuku         Assembly, give up entirely to the
       Articles and Conditions.         rawa atu ki te Kuini o Ingarani ake      Queen of England for ever all the
                                         tonu atu-te Kawanatanga katoa o           Government of their lands.
      ARTICLE THE FIRST                            ratou wenua.
                                                                                            The Second
 The Chiefs of the Confederation of               KO TE TUARUA
 the United Tribes of New Zealand                                               The Queen of England arranges and
 and the separate and independent         Ko te Kuini o Ingarani ka wakarite       agrees to give to the Chiefs, the
    Chiefs who have not become            ka wakaae ki nga Rangatira ki nga       Hapus and all the people of New
 members of the Confederation cede          hapu-ki nga tangata katoa o Nu        Zealand, the full chieftainship of
    to Her Majesty the Queen of          Tirani te tino rangatiratanga o ratou    their lands, their settlements and
  England absolutely and without           wenua o ratou kainga me o ratou      their property. But the Chiefs of the
reservation all the rights and powers   taonga katoa. Otiia ko nga Rangatira Assembly, and all the other Chiefs,
    of Sovereignty which the said        o te wakaminenga me nga Rangatira gives to the Queen the purchase of
 Confederation or Individual Chiefs         katoa atu ka tuku ki te Kuini te        those pieces of land which the
 respectively exercise or possess, or    hokonga o era wahi wenua e pai ai te      proprietors may wish, for such
  may be supposed to exercise or to     tangata nona te Wenua-ki te ritenga o payment as may be agreed upon by
    possess, over their respective      te utu e wakaritea ai e ratou ko te kai    them and the purchaser who is
  Territories as the sole Sovereigns      hoko e meatia nei e te Kuini hei kai   appointed by the Queen to be her


                                                                                                                        203
               thereof.                                hoko mona.                               purchaser.

     ARTICLE THE SECOND                            KO TE TUATORU                                The Third

 Her Majesty the Queen of England         Hei wakaritenga mai hoki tenei mo te     This is an arrangement for the
   confirms and guarantees to the         wakaaetanga ki te Kawanatanga o te consent to the Government of the
  Chiefs and Tribes of New Zealand            Kuini-Ka tiakina e te Kuini o     Queen. The Queen of England will
  and to the respective families and      Ingarani nga tangata Maori; katoa o      protect all the Maoris of New
individuals thereof the full exclusive      Nu Tirani ka tukua ki a ratou nga   Zealand. All the rights will be given
 and undisturbed possession of their      tikanga katoa rite tahi ki ana mea ki  to them the same as her doings to
 Lands and Estates Forests Fisheries            nga tangata o Ingarani.                the people of England.
and other properties which they may
collectively or individually possess so    [signed] William Hobson Consul &                  William Hobson
 long as it is their wish and desire to           Lieutenant Governor                Consul and Lieutenant Governor
 retain the same in their possession;
 but the Chiefs of the United Tribes       Na ko matou ko nga Rangatira o te         Now, we the Chiefs of the Assembly
  and the individual Chiefs yield to         Wakaminenga o nga hapu o Nu              of the Hapus of New Zealand, now
  Her Majesty the exclusive right of       Tirani ka huihui nei ki Waitangi ko      assembled at Waitangi. We also, the
  Preemption over such lands as the        matou hoki ko nga Rangatira o Nu             Chiefs of New Zealand, see the
proprietors thereof may be disposed        Tirani ka kite nei i te ritenga o enei      meaning of these words: they are
 to alienate at such prices as may be       kupu, ka tangohia ka wakaaetia          taken and consented to altogether by
 agreed upon between the respective       katoatia e matou, koia ka tohungia ai      us. Therefore are affixed our names
 Proprietors and persons appointed            o matou ingoa o matou tohu.                         and marks.
by Her Majesty to treat with them in
               that behalf.               Ka meatia tenei ki Waitangi i te ono o This done at Waitangi, on the sixth
                                          nga ra o Pepueri i te tau kotahi mano, day of February, in the year one
      ARTICLE THE THIRD                     e waru rau e wa te kau o to tatou    thousand eight hundred and forty,
                                                         Ariki.                             of Our Lord.
   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

                                                                                                                           204
         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.


It can be readily seen that the English text shown (left), which is assumed to be the source or mother document of Reverend
Williams‟ Maori translation, is far heavier and wordier than its Maori version counterpart. The sentence order differs quite
considerably, as does the word weight per sentence. Maori people had visited or were living in Britain and Australia by 1840
and Maori-equivalent words for Kingdom, Favour, Emigration, Europe, Functionary, Pre-emption, Ireland, Australia, Forests

                                                                                                                        205
and Fisheries either existed or could be very closely approximated. These words are not found in the Maori Tiriti O Waitangi
text because they were not in Busby‟s final English draft, handed to the translators at 4 p.m. on the 4th of February 1840.

The question goes begging: Why would adept and seasoned translators of the Maori language come up with a text that was so
radically different to what the legislators wished be said? Reverend Henry Williams had been a stalwart and hard working missionary
in New Zealand for 17-years when he undertook to complete this treaty translation. As Head of the C.M.S. Mission, he was a very
fluent speaker of Maori. His son Edward was 21-years old and had been raised amongst the Nga-Puhi tribe. He had a reputation of
being a scholar “par excellence” in the Nga-Puhi dialect. In all respects, Edward was a very talented and serious young man, with a
wonderful command of language and also an adept artist. He later accompanied Major Thomas Bunbury on a treaty-signing mission to
the South Island and Stewart Island, acting as interpreter. Of that journey he wrote a fully detailed report for the historical record and
produced a beautifully executed drawing of H.M.S Herald lying at anchor in Sylvan Cove, Stewart Island.




Edward Marsh Williams‟ beautifully executed drawing of H.M.S Herald lying at anchor in Sylvan Cove, Stewart Island in
1840. Edward had been raised amidst Maori and was considered to be a scholar “par-excellence” in the Nga-Puhi dialect.



                                                                                                                                      206
It is a contradiction that historians, who are highly critical of the Williams‟ Maori translation as it compares to the official English
version, will also admit, in the same breath, that the final English draft, from which the Williams‟ team worked, „went missing‟. To
find the text wording in English that the translators worked from, it might have been more logical to search for a February 1840
English draft that mirrored a Maori back-translation perfectly.

Such a version has existed in United States Government records since February 20th 1840, alongside two other duplicate originals,
from April 3rd & April 5th 1840. In truth, the Williams‟ father and son team did a perfect job of translating the true or actual final
draft that they were handed on the 4th of February 1840 at 4 p.m. and required to work from.

Researchers are encouraged to return to the 16-pages of rough notes that preceded the final draft to see where Freeman grabbed bits
and pieces or more substantial lumps in order to create several, variable, ad-hoc, composite, „Royal-Style‟ versions, one of which has
graduated into becoming our official treaty. It will be seen that he had to take it upon himself to add some linking text to tie things
together or was required to edit out large sections of superfluous nonsense. Clearly, there is no final draft, sufficient for translators to
work confidently from, to be found amidst the 16-pages of rough notes. There absolutely had to be a final draft beyond these 16-pages
of raw and disjointed concepts.

It‟s bizarre that our historians can accept that Hobson travelled halfway around the world to secure rights for the European settlers
(Ngati-Wikitoria), but then forgot to mention those rights in the final English treaty draft. The fact of the matter is that settler rights,
equal to Maori, were fully included..




                                                                                                                                           207
 The Littlewood Treaty, which was        The Maori text translated by Reverend Translation from the Original Maori
  Busby‟s final draft of the 4th of          Henry Williams & Edward M.            by, Mr. T.E. Young, Native
           February 1840                         Williams 4-5/2/1840                    Department (1869)

   Her Majesty Victoria, Queen of        Ko Wikitoria te Kuini o Ingarani i tana   Victoria, Queen of England, in her
       England in Her gracious            mahara atawai ki nga Rangatira me      kind thoughtfulness to the Chiefs and
 consideration of the chiefs and the       nga Hapu o Nu Tirani i tana hiahia   Hapus of New Zealand, and her desire
  people of New Zealand, and Her          hoki kia tohungia ki a ratou o ratou  to preserve to them their chieftainship
   desire to preserve to them their       rangatiratanga me to ratou wenua, a     and their land, and that peace may
  lands and to maintain peace and        kia mau tonu hoki te Rongo ki a ratou        always be kept with them and
   order amongst them, has been          me te Atanoho hoki kua wakaaro ia he     quietness, she has thought it a right
pleased to appoint an officer to treat        mea tika kia tukua mai tetahi      thing that a Chief should be sent here
   with them for the cession of the         Rangatira-hei kai wakarite ki nga   as a negotiator with the Maoris of New
 Sovreignty of their country and of         Tangata Maori; o Nu Tirani-kia          Zealand - that the Maoris of New
 the islands adjacent, to the Queen.      wakaaetia e nga Rangatira Maori; te          Zealand may consent to the
 Seeing that many of Her Majesty‟s           Kawanatanga o te Kuini ki nga       Government of the Queen of all parts
 subjects have already settled in the       wahikatoa o te Wenua nei me nga       of this land and the islands, because
country and are constantly arriving,      Motu-na te mea hoki he tokomaha ke    there are many people of her tribe that
     and it is desirable for their         nga tangata o tona Iwi Kua noho ki       have settled on this land and are
 protection as well as the protection        tenei wenua, a e haere mai nei.                  coming hither.
     of the natives, to establish a                                             Now the Queen is desirous to establish
     government amongst them.                 Na ko te Kuini e hiahia ana kia      the Government, that evil may not
                                         wakaritea te Kawanatanga kia kaua ai come to the Maoris and the Europeans
  Her Majesty has accordingly been           nga kino e puta mai ki te tangata         who are living without law.
   pleased to appoint me William          Maori ki te Pakeha e noho ture kore
Hobson, a captain in the Royal Navy       ana.Na, kua pai te Kuini kia tukua a    Now the Queen has been pleased to
to be Governor of such parts of New      hau a Wiremu Hopihona he Kapitana i send me, William Hobson, a Captain in
Zealand as may now or hereafter be         te Roiara Nawi hei Kawana mo nga      the Royal Navy, to be Governor to all
 ceded to Her Majesty and proposes       wahi katoa o Nu Tirani e tukua aianei, the places of New Zealand which may
to the chiefs of the Confederation of    amoa atu ki te Kuini, e mea atu ana ia   be given up now or hereafter to the
 United Tribes of New Zealand and         ki nga Rangatira o te wakaminenga o Queen; an he give forth to the Chiefs of
   the other chiefs to agree to the            nga hapu o Nu Tirani me era         the Assembly of the Hapus of New
                                          Rangatira atu enei ture ka korerotia     Zealand and other Chiefs the laws

                                                                                                                          208
         following articles.                              nei.                                 spoken here.

                                                    Ko Te Tuatahi                                The First
            Article First
                                         Ko nga Rangatira o te wakaminenga         The Chiefs of the Assembly, and all
 The chiefs of the Confederation of      me nga Rangatira katoa hoki ki hai i      Chiefs also who have not joined the
  the United Tribes and the other         uru ki taua wakaminenga ka tuku           Assembly, give up entirely to the
   chiefs who have not joined the        rawa atu ki te Kuini o Ingarani ake        Queen of England for ever all the
confederation, cede to the Queen of       tonu atu-te Kawanatanga katoa o             Government of their lands.
    England for ever the entire                     ratou wenua.
    Sovreignty of their country.
                                                    Ko Te Tuarua                                The Second
           Article Second
                                         Ko te Kuini o Ingarani ka wakarite ka     The Queen of England arranges and
The Queen of England confirms and        wakaae ki nga Rangatira ki nga hapu-     agrees to give to the Chiefs, the Hapus
   guarantees to the chiefs and the        ki nga tangata katoa o Nu Tirani te    and all the people of New Zealand, the
  tribes and to all the people of New     tino rangatiratanga o ratou wenua o      full chieftainship of their lands, their
    Zealand, the possession of their     ratou kainga me o ratou taonga katoa.    settlements and their property. But the
     lands, dwellings and all their            Otiia ko nga Rangatira o te          Chiefs of the Assembly, and all the
    property. But the chiefs of the      wakaminenga me nga Rangatira katoa         other Chiefs, gives to the Queen the
Confederation of United Tribes and        atu ka tuku ki te Kuini te hokonga o    purchase of those pieces of land which
 the other chiefs grant to the Queen,       era wahi wenua e pai ai te tangata      the proprietors may wish, for such
  the exclusive rights of purchasing     nona te Wenua-ki te ritenga o te utu e     payment as may be agreed upon by
such lands as the proprietors thereof     wakaritea ai e ratou ko te kai hoko e        them and the purchaser who is
may be disposed to sell at such prices      meatia nei e te Kuini hei kai hoko       appointed by the Queen to be her
   as may be agreed upon between                          mona.                                  purchaser.
  them and the person appointed by
  the Queen to purchase from them.                                                               The Third
                                                    Ko Te Tuatoru
            Article Third
                                    Hei wakaritenga mai hoki tenei mo te This is an arrangement for the consent
  In return for the cession of the   wakaaetanga ki te Kawanatanga o te to the Government of the Queen. The
Sovreignty to the Queen, the people Kuini-Ka tiakina e te Kuini o Ingarani Queen of England will protect all the

                                                                                                                              209
 of New Zealand shall be protected    nga tangata Maori; katoa o Nu Tirani     Maoris of New Zealand. All the rights
 by the Queen of England and the      ka tukua ki a ratou nga tikanga katoa    will be given to them the same as her
   rights and privileges of British    rite tahi ki ana mea ki nga tangata o     doings to the people of England.
  subjects will be granted to them.                   Ingarani.
                                                                                         William Hobson
                                       [signed] William Hobson Consul &          Consul and Lieutenant Governor
     Signed, William Hobson                   Lieutenant Governor
    Consul and Lieut. Governor.                                                Now, we the Chiefs of the Assembly of
                                        Na ko matou ko nga Rangatira o te         the Hapus of New Zealand, now
      Now we the chiefs of the        Wakaminenga o nga hapu o Nu Tirani assembled at Waitangi. We also, the
 Confederation of United Tribes of      ka huihui nei ki Waitangi ko matou         Chiefs of New Zealand, see the
New Zealand assembled at Waitangi, hoki ko nga Rangatira o Nu Tirani ka meaning of these words: they are taken
   and we the other tribes of New       kite nei i te ritenga o enei kupu, ka    and consented to altogether by us.
  Zealand, having understood the         tangohia ka wakaaetia katoatia e       Therefore are affixed our names and
 meaning of these articles, accept of   matou, koia ka tohungia ai o matou                     marks.
   them and agree to them all.In                ingoa o matou tohu.
witness whereof our names or marks Ka meatia tenei ki Waitangi i te ono o This done at Waitangi, on the sixth day
            are affixed.               nga ra o Pepueri i te tau kotahi mano, of February, in the year one thousand
                                      e waru rau e wa te kau o to tatou Ariki. eight hundred and forty, of Our Lord.
Done at Waitangi on the 4th of Feb.
               1840.




                                                                                                                       210
In light of Beryl Needham and her brother, John Littlewood finding Busby's final English draft of the Treaty of Waitangi in
1989, the longstanding puzzle concerning the vast differences in the English and Maori texts is a puzzle no more. It is apparent
that the government is knowingly using the wrong English version of the treaty in all of its legislation. There is no reason to
persist with this insane policy of using the composite, largely 3rd of February rough draft as our official English and, by
consequence, legislative text for any-and-all Treaty of Waitangi legal interpretations.

                                                                Next

                                                            Chapter 14

                                                     FOR WANT OF A NAIL

„For want of a nail the shoe was lost. For want of a shoe the horse was lost. For want of a horse the rider was lost. For want of
a rider the battle was lost. For want of a battle the kingdom was lost. And all for the want of a horseshoe nail‟ (John Gower‟s
Confesio Amantis, circa 1390).

One commentator describes this well-known children‟s rhyme and the moral lesson contained within it as:

„A clever set of lyrics encouraging children to apply logical progression to the consequences of their actions. “For want of a
nail” is often used to gently chastise a child, whilst explaining the possible events that may follow a thoughtless act‟.

A nail comes adrift.

Hobson was quite a sick man from the day he arrived in New Zealand and a very sick man one month later, having been stricken with
a debilitating stroke and uncertain if he would ever recover sufficiently to carry on as Lieutenant-Governor. Even on the 5th of
February, at the treaty grounds, his pallid and sickly expression did not go unnoticed. After the meeting an old chief confronted
Hobson and his party as they made their way to their boat, and gazed intently into the Lieutenant Governor‟s face for a few minutes.
„Then in a loud shrill voice he cried out in wailing tones - “Aue he koroheke! E kore e roa kua mate”. Hobson asked Reverend
William Colenso for a translation of what was said, but Colenso was evasive, until pressed by Hobson to tell him. Reluctantly,
Colenso told him that the grey haired chief had said - „Alas! An old man. He will soon be dead‟ (See The Treaty of Waitangi, by
T.L. Buick, pg. 148).




                                                                                                                                 211
Throughout much of the first month in New Zealand, Hobson was running on empty, but pushed himself hard, even though he had
few energy reserves to draw upon. Although he always attempted to keep up appearances and exhibit an astute and noble bearing, or
put on as brave a face as he could in public, it‟s likely he virtually collapsed into bed upon his return, each day, to the seclusion of his
cabin aboard H.M.S Herald or other facilities where he stayed. Because of illness, Hobson had to rely heavily on his staff, some of
whom he barely knew. One such individual was James Stuart Freeman, a 3rd class clerk assigned to Hobson by Governor Sir George
Gipps of N.S.W. to act as Hobson‟s private secretary. Of some of the staff assigned to Hobson, a future Auckland newspaper editor,
Samuel Martin, wrote:

„Captain Hobson is accompanied by several officers, selected for their known incompetency, by George Gipps. What
assistance he is to expect from these persons I do not know, but they are evidently sent to New Zealand because Sir George
Gipps has no use for their services here, and was consequently anxious to get rid of them‟ (see J Buller, pg. 371).

The task of Hobson‟s secretary was to keep records, report daily events and make up overseas despatches, such that Hobson‟s
superiors could stay abreast of developments within the fledgling colony. In many or most cases journal entries or letters and reports
had to be hand written in duplicate or triplicate…a copy or two for despatch overseas or elsewhere and one for the Colonial
Secretary‟s records. Because of illness or a rigorous travel schedule, Hobson had little hope of supervising Freeman to any great
degree and had to rely on Gipps‟ earlier judgment that Freeman was competent. He should have been, as he was a well-educated man
of about 32-years of age (estimated to have been born in 1808), who had attended Eton Public School and then Oxford University. He
had married Eleanor Moslyn on the 24th of October 1836 at Old Church, St Pancras, London, England before emigrating to Australia
and taking up clerical duties within the N.S.W Government.

Freeman had a very presentable writing style and a good command of English, but, having only newly arrived in New Zealand, lacked
any knowledge of the Maori language. He also seems to have had no appreciation, whatsoever, of any need to be accurate and
consistent in his representation of the Treaty of Waitangi text in English. To him, the English rendition could vary to a greater or
lesser degree each time one was sent abroad. His focus and preoccupation was on the way it sounded, not on what it said. Historian
Ruth Ross observed the following in 1972, about 20-years before Busby‟s final English draft was rediscovered and placed back into
the public arena:

„What then is „the English version‟? In all, Hobson forwarded five English versions to his superiors in Sydney or London. The
differences in wording of three of these versions are minor, of significance only because there are differences; two of the texts
have a different date, differ substantially in the wording of the preamble from the others, and from each other at one very
critical point in the second article. A comparison of all five English versions with the Maori text makes it clear that the Maori



                                                                                                                                         212
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.

The relationship of these five English versions with the draft notes printed in Fac-similes was as follows: Hobson‟s draft
became the preamble of three of the English versions, the preamble of the other two versions following the preamble in the
Freeman draft. There is no mention of forests and fisheries in one version, but otherwise the articles in all five versions are the
same and draw heavily on Busby‟s draft, shorn of the major part of his wordy conclusion. Busby‟s articles, however, were in
large measure an expansion of those in Freeman‟s notes‟ (See Te Tiriti O Waitangi - Texts and Translations, New Zealand
Journal of History, 1972).

Without adequate supervision or a stringent directive to remain singularly consistent in despatching only one strictly worded English
version of the Treaty of Waitangi, Freeman produced several variations. For these, he simply dipped, at will, into the 12-pages of
rough, superseded and now obsolete draft notes in his possession and extracted text to make ad-hoc composite treaty versions. During
February and March of 1840, he mostly used Hobson‟s Preamble. Thereafter, he went through a phase where he tagged on the
Preamble he, himself, had produced around the 1st of February 1840, when Hobson was too jaded and ill to attempt working out treaty
draft text himself. After April 1840, Freeman manufactured at least 3 of these new treaty versions for despatch using his own
grandiose Preamble, „Her Most Gracious Majesty Victoria Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland
regarding with deep solicitude…‟ etc. He seems to have been quite enamoured with this text and, possibly, wished to be
immortalised by submitting this, his own literary creation, to dwell forevermore amidst the illustrious, treaty related papers of the
British Parliament or U.S. Congressional archives.

James Stuart Freeman seemed to have a fixation upon providing Hobson‟s superiors with English treaty texts that rose above the
coarse and simple wording of the final draft. Knowing that the important founding documents of the colony were to come under the
critical gaze of British lords and ladies or, perhaps, Queen Victoria herself, Freeman seemed intent upon upgrading the otherwise
simplistic, crude, final English text into suitably pretentious language, befitting high stations of the realm. The more beautiful
embellishments of language had, earlier, been lopped off the draft texts at the last meeting, when the final draft was severely edited-
back and refined for fluid translation into the Maori language. Buick paraphrases Reverend Henry Williams in writing:

The task of translation was necessarily a difficult one, it being essential that there should be a complete avoidance of all
expressions of the English for which there was no equivalent in Maori (see The Treaty of Waitangi, by T.L. Buick, pg. 113).

Seemingly, in Freeman‟s view, just because it became essential to couch treaty terminology in pidgin English for translation purposes,
this didn‟t mean that it had to so remain when presented to Her Majesty.*

                                                                                                                                      213
Whereas uninhibited literary licence could have no ill effect when reporting mundane events, and one could use flamboyant phrases
with impunity, it was an altogether different matter when identifying the precise text of an internationally recognised treaty compact.
Freeman, seemingly, couldn‟t make that distinction or connection. Perhaps he thought that, if he despatched a treaty text that was too
crude or simplistic in its wording, then that, by consequence, might diminished the dignity of Hobson‟s office in the estimation of his
superiors and reflect badly on Freeman as secretary. A man educated at Eton and Oxford was capable of much better and, moreover,
the old school tie demanded as much. Freeman never showed any inclination towards providing the final draft version for despatch,
but sent away a variety of other composite versions, in more dignified or highfalutin language. On a couple of occasions Hobson
initialled the top corner of a treaty despatch document, which was otherwise fully in Freeman‟s handwriting. Other times, Freeman
simply signed Hobson‟s name for him.

*Footnote: Dr. Phil Parkinson refers to: „the formal Royal Style (quite properly employed by Freeman, and not an eccentric case
of „pride‟ as you seem to assert) and sent to Gipps in the despatches of the 5th and 6th February and sent on the 8th February
in the Samuel Winter before being forwarded to Normanby on the 19th, now at PRO CO 209/7, 13-15. (Letter to Martin
Doutré, 1st November 2004).

To which one must respond that, the injection of a „formal Royal Style‟ copy into the treaty process could be considered fine, as long
as that version is accorded no legal validity and, by it‟s very existence, doesn‟t nullify the original Tiriti O Waitangi contract. The
agreement was set in stone at the assembly on the 6th of February 1840 and can‟t be tampered with or affected by Freeman trying to
accommodate the perceived delicate sensibilities of royalty. If such catering was considered necessary or traditional, then it was up to
Freeman to ensure that, never the twain shall meet and to isolate the contract from the poetry as two separate entities.

Once Hobson had secured a treaty with the Maori chiefs he seemed patently disinterested in what versions Freeman was
manufacturing for despatch to Australia, Britain or the United States. As far as Hobson was concerned, there was only one (de facto)
treaty contract and it was written fully in the Maori language. English versions were simply drafts or back-translations and no English
version was ever intended, by either Hobson‟s government or Shortland‟s interim government, to be signed by the chiefs.

Bad luck about that horseshoe.

After Lieutenant Governor William Hobson had his stroke and lay paralysed and despondent, trying to recuperate, he was obliged to
hand the reins of power to Willoughby Shortland. All of Hobson‟s hopes were dashed and his plans were in disarray. He could no
longer figure on being present at treaty assemblies around the county where, as the Queen‟s duly appointed representative, his
presence could wield much influence in inducing the chiefs to sign the treaty. Reverend Richard Davis and his family were looking



                                                                                                                                     214
after Hobson at Waimate and nursing him back to strength. After about the 15th of March 1840 Hobson‟s main focus was to attempt
to pencil a short note to his wife Eliza in Australia, using his paralysed, but slowly improving, right hand.

At some point at the height of Hobson‟s early illness and paralysis down his right side, James Stuart Freeman had placed one of his
ad-hoc, composite versions of the treaty in English (Royal Style) under Hobson‟s nose. This was, without doubt, while Hobson lay
stricken aboard H.M.S. Herald, between the 1st and 4th of March, before Hobson was returned to the Bay of Islands from the
Waitemata. Hobson attempted to add a signature using his left hand, but the result was terrible and the signature was the worst Hobson
ever executed on any known document. Freeman had, obviously, written this English language treaty document up for despatch
overseas, as none such were ever intended to be sent by the government for use at the treaty signing assemblies. Hobson‟s abysmal
signature, assuredly, rendered the document worthless and a reject, as, if it had of been sent to either Australia or Britain, the poor
signature could have accomplished little else but convince Hobson‟s superiors that he was too ill to fulfil the most basic physical
demands of office. It‟s very doubtful that Hobson would have agreed to let the document be sent anywhere, other than to the nearest
waste paper basket.

It seems very likely that the document was left near the portage* in Waitemata area and later came into the possession of Captain
Gordon Brown. The captain was transporting much printed matter to Reverend Robert Maunsell, located at Waikato Heads, and
passed through the Waitemata en-route to Maunsell‟s station by mid-March 1840. This appears to be about the only way Maunsell
could have received the defective English document before the 11th of April 1840. Inasmuch as Brown‟s boat left the Bay of Islands
to go to Thames simultaneous to H.M.S. Herald leaving the Waitemata to return to the Bay of Islands, it seems that the two vessels
were like “ships passing in the night” and never made contact. The document must have been left at Tamaki in the Waitemata area
and, either taken to Maunsell by someone who had been in attendance at the treaty signing assembly there on the 4th of March or
informally and unbeknown to Hobson, picked up by Brown en-route to Port Waikato.

The historical record tells us that Freeman sent the reject and worthless document, which he'd personally put a lot of work into
creating, to Reverend Robert Maunsell at Waikato Heads mission station. Maunsell, in a letter to the Lay Secretary of 30th March
1840 made mention that "the Secretary" (Freeman) had sent the document to him. (See R Maunsell to Lay Secretary, 30 March
1840, in ATL-Micro-MS-Coll-04-33 (CMS Archives CN/M v. 12 pp 308-309).

*Footnote: The portage at Tamaki in Auckland was a thin strip of land dividing the East Coast (Pacific Ocean) from the West Coast
(Tasman Sea). At this porterage boats, including small cargo vessels, were lugged, hauled or carried (porter is French for to carry) to
the waters of the opposite coastal estuaries. The region of Portage Road, Auckland, is where this activity occurred. If Captain Gordon
Brown was sailing, via Waitemata, all the way to Reverend Maunsell, then he was obliged to have his boat hauled over the porterage,
just like William Cornwallis Symonds did with his vessels about three weeks after Brown.

                                                                                                                                    215
The likeliest scenario is that Freeman gave the defective English copy to someone as a souvenir at the treaty assembly conducted on
the 4th of March 1840 at Waitemata. Of this meeting, Felton Mathew wrote to his wife:

'Last evening we received a communication from Mr. Williams that the natives had assembled. Accordingly, at 7 this morning,
Cooper, myself and Captn Nias sailed down to the place of rendezvous where the ceremony of signing the treaty (as it is called)
was soon performed and we have now just returned on board at 3 p.m.'

Captain Nias makes an account of this in his report, mentioning „Messrs. Williams and Fairburne‟ organising a meeting and his
attending it with Felton Mathew and George Cooper. Freeman‟s handwriting appears on this Maori treaty signed on the 4th of March
and it seems reasonable to assume he was in attendance on the day, as there was no need for him to remain on board the H.M.S.
Herald. Hobson was being medically attended to by Dr. Alexander Lane, M.D. & ship‟s Surgeon.

Upon the return of Hobson to the Bay of Islands, Willoughby Shortland, Acting Lieutenant Governor, organised a treaty-signing
programme in earnest and was choosing experienced emissaries to go to particular Christian missions, along assigned routes, in behalf
of the government. The appointees were to work in with C.M.S or Wesleyan missionaries and gain their cooperation as fluent
interpreters in the local tongue or dialect, at treaty meetings before the district chiefs. For this purpose, a series of treaty documents, all
in the Maori language, had been prepared throughout February and most of these had been pre-signed by Hobson prior to his stroke.
James Stuart Freeman, who suffered from the disadvantage of being a non-Maori speaker, had painstakingly written up the majority of
these large and beautifully executed documents.
Copying the Maori language correctly must have required tremendous concentration and it‟s very likely that Freeman worked from a
master copy created by Reverend Henry Williams. That selfsame master document is probably the unsigned treaty, presently in the
collection of the Catholic Diocese in St. Mary‟s Bay, Auckland.

There is no record of how many treaty documents were made, but 7 large handwritten copies and 1 printed copy became the
repositories of about 500 chiefly signatures from around the country. Freeman‟s mistaken, orphan, English copy, which found its way
to Port Waikato, was used there in no other capacity but to accommodate the overflow of signatures that would not fit onto the printed
Maori sheet presented by Maunsell on the day.

The instructions to each government appointee were clear. Treaty presentations to the chiefs were to be in the Maori language, using
the official text.

Sir James Henare, the last surviving member of the Council of the Chiefs of Ngapuhi of the Treaty of Waitangi recounted, in
1987, oral history about the Waitangi proceeding‟s and later hui discussion: „Captain Hobson arrived on the 5th at the Treaty

                                                                                                                                           216
grounds and read the clauses of the Treaty or the articles of the Treaty and suggested to the chiefs that they could have ample
time, a week, to consider the Treaty and it was the Maori version that was given to them to consider‟ (see Hobson...Governor of
New Zealand 1840-1842, by Paul Moon, pp 104-105).

This was amplified again, when Williams wrote: „We gave them but one version, explaining clause by clause, showing the
advantages to them of being taken under the fostering care of the British Government…‟

„The instruction of Captain Hobson was, “not to allow any one to sign the treaty till he fully understood it;” to which
instruction I did most strictly attend. I explained the treaty clause by clause at the signing of the same, and again to all the
natives in this part of the island previously to the destruction of Kororareka, on March 11, 1845; I maintained the faith of the
treaty and the integrity of the British Government, and that the word of Her Majesty was sacred, and could not be violated.
That the natives to whom I explained the treaty understood the nature of the same, there can be no doubt; ...” (Volume II of
“The Life of HENRY WILLIAMS, Archdeacon of Waimate,” by Hugh Carleton, published 1877 by Wilson & Horton,
Auckland).

Let it be re-emphasised that every treaty copy issued by the government for presentation to the chiefs and earmarked to receive their
signatures was written in, and was to be presented in, the Maori language. There were no exceptions to this rule. At early assemblies
where European settlers were present, Hobson read the final English draft for the benefit of the settlers. Alternatively, Maori were to
receive and consider only the version expressed in their native tongue. This was in keeping with the instructions expressed in Lord
Normanby‟s Colonial Office, guideline brief, given to Hobson before he left England (over 4200-words in length):

„All dealings with the natives for their lands must be conducted on the same principles of sincerity, justice and good faith as
must govern your transactions with them for the recognition of Her Majesty‟s sovereignty in the Islands. Nor is that all: they
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‟ (See Lord Normanby‟s
1839 Brief to William Hobson, The Treaty of Waitangi, by T.L. Buick, pp. 70-79). Underlining added.

*Footnote: Under this strict criteria, only the Maori language treaty wording was ever earmarked for presentation to, and
consideration by, the chiefs. Normanby‟s Brief is explicit throughout that the whole venture is to be conducted at a high level of
integrity and clearly understood negotiation.

                                                                                                                                      217
The Mission of William Cornwallis Symonds.

On the 13th of March, Shortland sent a newly made, signed Maori copy, penned by James Stuart Freeman and bearing Shortland‟s
signature, to Captain William Cornwallis Symonds, formerly an officer in the British Army and son of Sir William Symonds,
Surveyor of the British Navy. Captain W.C. Symonds was Deputy-Surveyor of New Zealand and an accomplished linguist in the
Maori language, with a vocabulary of 3000 words. His assignment was to collect signatures at Awhiti, Manukau, assisted by Church
Missionary Society catechist, Mr. James Hamlin, considered, by many Maori, to have the best accent and ability to enunciate in the
Maori tongue of any speaker to be found amongst the European missionaries. Captain Symonds was to conduct treaty meetings with
the chiefs, first at the southern shores of the Manukau Harbour, then, with the assistance of Reverend Robert Maunsell, at the Waikato
Heads mission. From there Captain Symonds was to undertake a journey further south to the mission station of Wesleyan missionary,
Reverend John Whiteley at Kawhia to collect signatures from chiefs ranging down the coast towards Taranaki.

Unfortunately, ardent opponents to the treaty, like Chief Rewa, influenced by the negativity of Bishop Pompallier, had already
coloured the thinking of the chiefs at Manukau when Symonds arrived and none signed after the first hurriedly called meeting
conducted by James Hamlin and William Symonds. Another meeting was held on the 20th of March where Paramount Chief Te
Wherowhero was present, but the only signatures acquired came from three chiefs of the Ngati Whatua tribe. After two futile meetings
and only meagre success William Symonds was obliged to abandon any further attempts at negotiation, for the moment, and make his
way, belatedly, to Reverend Robert Maunsell at Waikato Heads. Symonds left Manukau on April 3rd, hauling his boats across the
portage, which divides the Manukau from the waters of the Waikato. He then proceeded down the Awaroa River to the Church
Mission Station at Waikato Heads, unfortunately arriving there several days too late for Reverend Robert Maunsell‟s treaty meeting
(see The Treaty of Waitangi, by T.L. Buick, pp 188-189).

Reverend Maunsell had been obliged to take advantage of an already scheduled business meeting (hui) of the natives in his district to
address their assembly concerning the treaty. This meeting was held on April 11th 1840, before a huge Maori assembly (1500 people).
Reverend Maunsell was very successful in his endeavours, but within the space of a few days it dawned on the signatories that they
had not received blankets, like other chiefs of the north, as tokens of friendship and thanks (koha). Some chiefs were insulted by this
oversight and wanted to „tear the treaty up‟ as a result of the perceived breach in protocol. Reference to this “hui” is mentioned in Te
Manihera...The Life and Times of the Pioneer Missionary Robert Maunsell, by Helen Garrett, 1991, pg. 90, wherein it says:

„Amongst the missionaries, four were appointed to collect signatures. One of the four was Maunsell*, who was sent a copy of
the Treaty* and was responsible for getting signatures of the Waikato chiefs. He took advantage of a business meeting of the
natives in his district to produce the Treaty‟.



                                                                                                                                    218
*Footnote: It‟s important to remember that Maunsell was only ever sent one official treaty document by the government (and that it
was a Maori language version), despatched with William C. Symonds on the 13th of March 1840 and originating from Willoughby
Shortland, Acting Lieutenant-Governor. It didn‟t arrive in time.

Thankfully, before the situation with the slighted chiefs at Waikato Heads got too far out of hand for Reverend Maunsell, Captain
W.C. Symonds arrived at the mission. He‟d brought Maunsell‟s official treaty document too late for it to be of any use. Symonds had
a few blankets with him and these were distributed, with a promise that more were arriving. The formerly insulted chiefs were
appeased at the gesture and goodwill returned. Maunsell had been awaiting the arrival of Symonds, „with no small anxiety‟ (see The
Treaty of Waitangi by T.L. Buick, pp 188-189).

Maunsell, in lieu of having received the official treaty document, had innovated to take advantage of the hui business meeting on the
11th of April, at which chiefs from far and wide were assembled. For his presentation on the day he had a Church Mission Society
printed Maori version of the Treaty of Waitangi, undoubtedly sent down by Colenso from Paihia, via Captain Brown on the 4th of
March 1840. He also had a beautifully hand written, but unauthorised or defective, English copy. This English copy was one of the
„Formal Royal Style‟ versions for overseas despatch, penned by James Stuart Freeman, using rejected Articles from Busby‟s rough
notes of the 3rd of February 1840 and one of two choices of early Preambles. How, exactly, Maunsell had acquired this copy remains
a mystery, but we know for certain that it was not sent to him by the government for use in his meeting.

True to his instructions from Hobson, Maunsell would have conducted his entire presentation in the Maori language, using only the
Maori text. Nevertheless, the big, impressive looking piece of paper in English had a large clear space at the bottom, which could
serve the purpose of accommodating additional signatures when there was no further room left on the Church Mission Society (Maori
language) printed copy.

Like at all other centres around New Zealand, the standard Maori text is what was presented to the chiefs and 1500 of their tribes-
people at Waikato Heads. The first chiefs coming forward signed the C.M.S. Mission printed sheet, but quickly ran out of room.
Reverend Maunsell‟s signature can be seen on the upper right hand side of the handwritten section, where it says, „signed in my
presence, R. Maunsell‟. All handwriting on this sheet is that of Reverend Robert Maunsell. Captain Gordon Brown brought this copy
to Maunsell in mid or late March. Colenso issued several hundred printed items to Captain Brown on the 4th of March at Paihia,
which were destined for Maunsell at Port Waikato*.

*Footnote: According to the Day & Waste book of C.M.S. printer, William Colenso, on the 4th of March 1840 he “issued” a large
batch of materials for Reverend Robert Maunsell of the Waikato Heads mission. Colenso‟s record states that he printed 500 Prayer
[books], 300 Primers, 200 Kupu Ui and 3qu (3 sheets for covers). These were „issued‟ to Gordon Brown to be taken to Maunsell on

                                                                                                                                   219
Brown‟s boat, going by way of Thames. Colenso‟s note stated: „Issued to R. Maunsell, for Waikato and Manukau‟ (see Colenso‟s
Day and Waste Book, 1840, Auckland Institute and Museum Library).

On the following page is the C.M.S printed Treaty of Waitangi text copy, used by Reverend Robert Maunsell and his assistant
Benjamin Yate Ashwell on April 11th 1840:




                                                                                                                              220
221
Like at all other centres around New Zealand, this standard Maori text is what was presented to the chiefs and 1500 of their
tribes-people at Waikato Heads. The first chiefs coming forward signed this sheet, but quickly ran out of room. Reverend
Maunsell's signature can be seen on the upper right hand side of the handwritten section, where it says, 'signed in my
presence, R. Maunsell'. All handwriting on this sheet is that of Reverend Robert Maunsell. Captain Gordon Brown brought
this copy to Maunsell in mid or late March. Colenso issued several hundred printed items to Captain Brown on the 4th of
March at Paihia, which were destined for Maunsell at Port Waikato.




                                                                                                                           222
223
Captain Gordon Brown was passing through the Waitemata region in early March with C.M.S Mission printed supplies for
Maunsell. It‟s plausible to assume that James Stuart Freeman left this reject English copy at Tamaki on the 4th of March 1840
and that it came into Captain Brown‟s possession when he took his boat over the Tamaki porterage while en route to
Maunsell. This is one of Freeman‟s „Royal Style‟ versions, of which he produced several variations to send overseas during this
period. Unlike the printed Maori copy that Maunsell based his presentation of the 11th of April 1840 on, this big piece of
paper, at least, had sufficient room at the bottom to receive the overflow of signatures that wouldn‟t fit on the printed Maori
sheet. On the day, after the first five chiefs had signed the printed Maori copy, the next thirty-two signatures overflowed onto
this one.

„THE ENGLISH TREATY AS SIGNED‟

The situation of some overflow signatures coming onto the orphan, out-of-place, English treaty sheet has led to a legal fiction called
“The English Treaty As Signed”. The fact that some overflow Maori signatures ended up on this defective English version somehow
legitimises its elevation to the status of the only true treaty wording. Grievance industry advocates cannot manipulate Te Tiriti O
Waitangi, so seek to supplant it with “The English Treaty As Signed”, which is hugely exploitable. With this English version they
can hold the country to ransom.
Recently a friend wrote a letter to Prime Minister Helen Clark, asking why the true Treaty of Waitangi wording was not used in the
implementation of Acts of Parliament and legislation. The Prime Minister funnelled Mike‟s enquiry to the Hon. Parekura Horomia,
who answered the question in the following, typical and expected manner.




                                                                                                                                  224
225
The Hon. Parekura Horomia refers to the „considerable scholarly debate‟ that has ensued since 1989 about the Littlewood
Treaty document. He then dismisses it as a „back-translation of the Maori version and goes on to extol the virtues of the „only
signed English version‟.

In response to the Hon. Parekura Horomia:

• There has been virtually no scholarly debate about the merits of the Littlewood Treaty. At least, the public of New Zealand aren‟t
aware of the subject being broached and dissected in any open forum. To the contrary, our scholars have avoided discussing the
subject in public, altogether, for over a decade.

• Yes, thirty-two signatures spilled over onto the unauthorised English document that was never sent by the government for use at Port
Waikato in the 11th of April 1840 meeting. The first five chiefs coming forward signed the printed Maori copy, which had been
presented by Reverend Maunsell. An additional seven signatures ended up on the orphan English sheet after W.C. Symonds‟ third
meeting at Manukau. He‟d already arranged to have the only government issued document forwarded on to Reverend Whiteley.
Symonds, like Maunsell, used the authorised text, printed Maori version for his assembly on the 26th of April 1840.

• You state, more or less correctly that, „The Maori version is legitimate in its own right and does not require a „final‟ English
version for its validity or interpretation‟. There is only one Treaty of Waitangi-Tiriti O Waitangi compact and it‟s in the Maori
language. In a fair and just world of checks and balances, however, the final English draft must be consulted if there is confusion,
deliberate or otherwise, in interpreting the meaning of the Treaty.

• Do you know that „ki nga Rangatira ki nga hapu-KI NGA TANGATA KATOA O NU TIRANI‟… means… „to the chiefs &
tribes AND TO ALL THE PEOPLE OF NEW ZEALAND‟…? We would consider it a gesture of enduring friendship if you would
desist from further opposing Ngati Wikitoria (the tribe of Queen Victoria) regaining their equal rights and protections, as guaranteed
under Article II of Te Tiriti O Waitangi!

From about 20-years after the signing of the treaty, until the present day, our legislators have never properly addressed and rectified
this minor procedural faux-pas initiated by Maunsell or the perceived legal implications that might be construed to have arisen
because of it. Maunsell‟s naïve and innocent use of the defective English composite draft, as a repository for overflow signatures, is
easy to identify in a documented or paper trail sense. One can easily see that he conducted his meeting correctly, but that a
miscellaneous piece of paper was pressed into service when the contract document had no further room to accommodate signatures.
We might turn it all around, just to be mischievous, and ask:



                                                                                                                                       226
What if that miscellaneous piece of paper, the content of which no chief had heard or understood at the meeting, had of been, say,
Captain Gordon Brown‟s bill to the mission for the recent shipment of supplies… would the chiefs then be liable, as guarantors, for
payment? What if it said that sovereignty was being ceded to France? What if it said that the chiefs agreed to be slaves in the cotton
fields of Louisiana? What if it said the chiefs had to pay the parliamentary booze bill at Bellamy‟s forevermore?

The signatures of the chiefs were volunteered in good faith, in response to what they had heard and understood, which was Te Tiriti O
Waitangi text in Maori. The true, accompanying Maori document, containing the pertinent contract wording presented by Maunsell,
was on the table and was in the process of being signed. It would have continued to receive all the signatures of all the chiefs had there
been space available. When there was no more room to accommodate additional signatures, the overflow signatures spilled over onto
the second sheet, the content of which was irrelevant, inasmuch as it was in a foreign tongue and had never been presented. It was just
a piece of paper, pressed into service and acting as a physical extension to the printed Maori Tiriti O Waitangi sheet.

Hobson had stated that there was only one de facto treaty and that it was a document in the Maori language.

Most assuredly, Robert Maunsell stood before the 1500 Maori, gathered in to Port Waikato on the 11th of April 1840, and read them
the correct, singularly Maori text, lifted directly from the official C.M.S. Mission printed sheet in his possession, which he later
signed. The assembled Maori at Waikato Heads heard exactly what every other assembly heard, which was the standard Maori text for
consideration and discussion. The same holds true for all three Treaty assemblies conducted at Manukau by Symonds, the last one of
which involved the usage of Maunsell‟s make-do treaty documents.




                                                                                                                                      227
228
TREATY DOCUMENT EVER ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT FOR USE IN THE TREATY PRESENTATION AND
SIGNING ASSEMBLIES AT MANUKAU, PORT WAIKATO AND KAWHIA. NOTE: IT IS IN THE MAORI LANGUAGE!

The foregoing is the ONLY official treaty document (handwritten by James Stuart Freeman in Maori) ever issued by the colonial
government for use in the signing ceremonies at Manukau, Waikato Heads and Kawhia. These regions and districts, nominated for
treaty discussion and signing gatherings before the chiefs, constituted the mission of Captain William Cornwallis Symonds,
Government appointee for treaty negotiations and Deputy-Surveyor of New Zealand. W.C. Symonds‟ assignment, issued by Acting
Lieutenant Governor, Willoughby Shortland, was to go first to Manukau and receive signatures from the chiefs there with the
assistance of Missionary James Hamlin of the C.M.S. Station. He was next to go to Waikato Heads and conduct a treaty meeting, with
the assistance of Reverend Robert Maunsell and Benjamin Yate Ashwell. After completion of work at and around the Waikato Heads
district, Symonds was to carry this official document, bearing all signatures gathered en route, to Reverend John Whiteley and his
assistant, James Wallis and conduct a series of meetings there, as well as, further south in Taranaki.

Maunsell wrote to Hobson: „and I have already forwarded on to Messrs Wallis and Whiteley the document left with me by
Captain Symonds in order that they may obtain as many more names as they deem expedient‟ (see Robert Maunsell LL.D. A
New Zealand Pioneer, His life and Times, by Henry E.R.L Wily, 1938, pp 68-69).

At all three meetings at Manukau the chiefs heard each presentation in their native tongue.

Maunsell was known to be amongst the most accomplished Maori speakers, to be found in the ranks of the missionaries in New
Zealand. At the time of this meeting at Port Waikato he was engaged in translating the Old Testament of the Bible into Maori. Earlier,
in order to learn the language, he would sit in discussion circles with Maori and have long conversations on general topics. After
becoming very fluent he made an offer: If anyone in the circle heard him use a word in error or out of context, then they would receive
a wad of tobacco, once they‟d proven he was, in fact, incorrect in his use or understanding of a word. Maunsell, apparently, went
through a lot of tobacco but, in the end, graduated to becoming a formidable linguist in Maori.

Historian Ruth Ross wrote in 1972:

„James Edward FitzGerald remarked in a debate on the Treaty of Waitangi in the House of Representatives in 1865: „if this
document was signed in the Maori tongue, whatever the English translation might be had nothing to do with the question.‟ He
went on to point out: „Governor Hobson might have wished the Maoris to sign one thing, and they might have signed
something totally different. Were they bound by what they signed or by what Captain Hobson meant them to sign?‟



                                                                                                                                   229
In a fair and just New Zealand, where no-one was vying for advantage over anyone else, the circumstances of what happened at Port
Waikato on the 11th of April or at Manukau on the 26th of April 1840, wouldn‟t warrant serious comment in any legal sense. It‟s
crystal clear what happened and the minor glitch of an unauthorised document being pressed into service to accommodate overflow
signatures cannot possibly render the Maori Tiriti O Waitangi text null and void as we‟re led to believe.

The logic that the grievance industry advocates bludgeon us into accepting without question is that the signatures of over 500 chiefs,
affixed to Maori language treaty documents, were eclipsed and made worthless when Maunsell innovated, without government
sanction, to have a “make-do” treaty document available for his meeting... despite the fact that he presented the Maori Tiriti O
Waitangi text to the chiefs, who then came forward to sign, solely on the basis of what they had just heard.
Somehow, according to the logic we‟re supposed to blindly accept, all European settler rights were immediately extinguished by
Maunsell‟s faux pas. Moreover the entire mission of Hobson, unbeknown to him as he recuperated miles away at the Bay of Islands,
suddenly became an abject failure.

Instead of legally dismissing this minor procedural glitch with the shrug that it deserves, it‟s allowed to be a bastion and rallying point
for a pack of voracious hyenas, intent upon gorging themselves insatiably on a succulent carcass called New Zealand.

Let‟s digress for a moment to consider the new, legal predicament, foisted on us by malevolent legislators.

                                                                   Next

                                                               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:


                                                                                                                                        230
„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:



                                                                                                                                       231
• 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.


                                                                                                                                        232
• 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

                                                                                                                                     233
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.

                                                                                                                                  234
(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.




                                                                                                                                      235
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:

„The names of the Waikato chiefs on this sheet [printed C.M.S treaty] were witnessed by Robert Maunsell, but there is no
indication of the date or place of signing. The chiefs were possibly visiting Maunsell‟s mission at the Waikato river mouth.
Ngati Pou lived on the east and west banks of the river further upstream; Ngati Te Wehi were at Raglan. Some uncertainty
surrounds this sheet as far as its date of printing [signing?]. It seems highly likely, however, that it was dispatched with the
English treaty copy sent to Maunsell to enable him better to explain the terms of the treaty‟. Underlining added.

Some of these statements seem unnecessarily vague, poorly researched and almost evasive. The only government issued document
„sent‟ to Maunsell was a handwritten Maori language one, authored by Freeman under Shortland‟s direction and carried overland or
via waterways by Symonds, commencing on the 13th of March 1840.
Reverend William Colenso, who had printed 200 Maori treaty sheets on the 17th of February, sent a consignment of goods to
Maunsell on March 4th 1840 with Captain Gordon Brown. It‟s glaringly obvious that this is how Maunsell received the printed Maori
Treaty. The defective English one appears to have been someone‟s souvenir; disposed of at the Waitemata by Freeman. There‟s no
way Maunsell would have made any form of presentation of Te Tiriti O Waitangi, as he was obliged to do, without having on hand
Te Tiriti O Waitangi text!

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

                                                                                                                                   236
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).

                                                                                                                                  237
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.

                                                                  Next

                                                              Chapter 16

                                             THE SO-CALLED “CERTIFIED COPY”

Even before the ink was dry on the Tiriti O Waitangi signed by the chiefs on February 6th 1840, James Stuart Freeman had
manufactured one of his composite, Royal Style treaty versions in English from the rough draft notes. This he despatched to Governor
Sir George Gipps on the 8th of February aboard the store ship, Samuel Winter, which sailed on the midday tide. Freeman did the same
two weeks later on the 21st of February, when he sent his (much vaunted by the grievance industry) “Certified Copy” to Gipps in a
despatch carried aboard the Martha. In a letter section to Gipps placed at the tail end of the same piece of paper, Freeman made
provision for Reverend Williams to „certify‟ the accuracy of his Maori translation, which was being sent in the same despatch.

Here‟s Freeman‟s “Royal style” English text, which he created by taking bits and pieces from the early draft notes and stringing them
together with linking text. This grandiose sounding version has now graduated into becoming our Treaty of Waitangi, supplanting and
replacing the Maori text.

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

                                                                                                                                      238
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 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.

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.

Freeman then used available space on the last page to tell Governor Sir George Gipps that, within the same enclosure, the names of 52
signatory chiefs at Waitangi and an additional 78 names received at Hokianga in the previous week would be included. These

                                                                                                                                  239
signatures were appended on separate documents to Freeman‟s Royal Style sheets. One of the appended documents included was
Reverend Henry Williams‟ printed Tiriti O Waitangi translation. The entire enclosure, containing all treaty related documents,
letters or reports, was then initialled by Hobson at the top left hand corner of Freeman‟s “Royal Style” document. Freeman also wrote
„Copy of the treaty‟ at the top left of Reverend Williams‟ printed Maori translation. Two weeks previously he‟d done the same when
Reverend Williams sent a handwritten Maori copy to Gipps and, on that occasion, Freeman initialled the Maori text with JSF at the
bottom left hand corner.

In this separate letter or information section beyond his Royal Style English treaty version to Gipps, Freeman wrote:

Here follow the signatures of 52 Chiefs, given at Waitangi on the sixth of February 1840: and the signatures of 78 chiefs given
at Hokianga on the 12th of that month.

A dividing line was then used to create a separate section of letter or information text.

This was followed by yet another clause, written by Freeman, wherein Reverend Williams was called upon to certify his Maori
translation.

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

Henry Williams.
In 1972, about 20-years before the Littlewood Treaty came back into the public arena, historian Ruth Ross listed the various (and
variable) treaty versions despatched overseas and, in her paper, included a preliminary qualifying statement:

„These were enclosures in the following despatches (except in the parentheses in (d), page references are to the English
versions, not to the despatches in which they are enclosed):
(a) Hobson to Gipps, 5-6 February 1840, of which a copy was enclosed in Gipps to Secretary of State, 19 February 1840 CO
209/6, pp. 52-54 and printed in GBPP, 1840, XXXIII, 560, pp. 10-11. (CO 209 is on microfilm, National Archives, Wellington).

(b) Hobson to Secretary of State, 40/1 of 17 February 1840, CO 209/7, pp. 13-14[v]; in the printed version, this despatch is
dated 16 February. GBPP, 1841, XVII. 311, p. 10.


                                                                                                                                    240
(c) Duplicate (dated 16 February 1840) of 40/1, G 30/1, pp. 29-32, National Archives, Wellington.

(d) Duplicate of Hobson to Secretary of State, 40/3 of 23 May 1840, G 30/1, pp. 75-78. (The original of 40/3 dated 25 May did
not enclose an English version - see CO 209/7, pp. 55-64).

(e) Hobson to Secretary of State, 40/7 of 15 October 1840, CO 209/7, p. 178, printed GBPP, 1841, XVII, 311, pp. 98-99, where it
is headed „Translation‟ and follows the Maori text, which is headed „Treaty‟. But in the original „certified copy of the Treaty
both in the English and Native language‟ on CO 209/7, p. 178, the heading „Treaty‟ applies to both English and Maori texts.

Ruth Ross then makes the following observation:

„From the very beginning, confusion has reigned over what was the translation for which. For this Henry Williams himself
was initially responsible. The English version forwarded with Hobson‟s first New Zealand despatch to the Secretary of State
was endorsed by Williams: I certify that the above is as Literal a translation of the Treaty of Waitangi as the idiom of the
Language will admit of‟. Yet this is palpably incorrect; Williams knew better than anyone else that the Treaty of Waitangi was
a translation of an English draft, not vice versa.‟ Underlining added.

Here, Ruth Ross seems confused about what Reverend Williams has certified. Whereas her focus is solely towards the several strange
English versions, she seems to have overlooked (?) the fact that three printed Maori copies were sent in the despatch enclosures of
the 21st of February. She hasn‟t, seemingly, made the connection that this is what Williams is certifying (his translation work). The
existence of these Maori copies is not, apparently, well known to many treaty historians, as the evidence would suggest that the copies
were taken out of the despatches and filed away separately. They don‟t appear on any of the available microfilms showing despatch
contents and few historians seem to know or will acknowledge that 4 Maori copies (one handwritten by Williams? and 3 printed) were
repatriated from the Colonial Office archives in Britain to New Zealand sometime in the 1940‟s. All were sent overseas in February
1840 to Gipps and Normanby. They‟re found in Vol. G-30/1, in the collection of the National Archives, Wellington, NZ. To my
knowledge this dynamic volume has never been microfilmed. If microfilm copies were generally available, or if the totality of all
items despatched in each enclosure were reassembled, the myth of the certified (English) Treaty could be quickly dispelled and
permanently laid to rest. Williams was certifying his Maori translation and nothing else!

Ruth Ross continues:
From the facts available it is apparent that what was given to Williams to translate about 4 p.m. on 4 February was a
composite version of the draft notes of Hobson, Freeman and Busby. Whether this composite text was compiled by Hobson, or
by his secretary or was their joint effort, it cannot have been put together until after Busby‟s draft articles had been

                                                                                                                                   241
„submitted to Capt. Hobson‟ sometime on 3 February. The existence of a number of other English versions, all of them
composite versions of the same draft notes, suggests a certain element of chance, as well as haste, in the compilation and
selection of the version actually handed over for translation. That these other composite texts were afterwards forwarded at
various times to Hobson‟s superiors, in each instance as though the text in question had official status - that is, was either a
translation of the treaty, or the text from which the treaty had been translated - suggests a considerable degree of carelessness,
or cynicism, in the whole process of treaty making (See Te Tiriti O Waitangi - Texts and Translations, by Ruth Ross, New
Zealand Journal of History, 1972). Underlining added.

In her attempts to fathom what happened, Ruth Ross limits the scope of her analysis to the extant rough draft documents that have
survived. These documents provide no avenue of understanding what was the mother document of the Maori version. Treaty historians
will now admit that the 4th of February 1840 “final draft” text went missing and that the surviving rough draft documents are only
preliminary texts.

Ruth Ross is bewildered by references to a so-called „certified copy‟ of the treaty and makes mention of Williams‟ strange, signed
endorsement at the end, which says:
„I certify that the above is as Literal a translation of the Treaty of Waitangi as the idiom of the Language will admit of‟.

She then adds:

„Yet this is palpably incorrect; Williams knew better than anyone else that the Treaty of Waitangi was a translation of an
English draft, not vice versa‟.

In 1972, when Ross was trying to fathom this incomprehensible mess, she had to conclude:

„A comparison of all five English versions with 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‟. Underlining added.

Had Ruth Ross lived to see the Littlewood Treaty (Busby‟s final draft) come back into the public arena or had she the opportunity to
compare its wording to both the Clendon and Wilkes‟ despatches, then she would have, undoubtedly, understood how all the treaty
related confusion was ushered in by the loss of the final English draft.

Let‟s look at page 4 of the so-called „certified copy‟ of the treaty and further weigh in the balance the notion that Williams is
certifying Freeman‟s ad hoc, Royal Style, composite version in English. Why would Williams endorse such wording when, as Ruth

                                                                                                                                     242
Ross observes, it is nothing like his Maori translation? Whereas the lingering impression left by some historians is that Williams
personally wrote out this entire copy then certified it, the truth is that the text was fully handwritten by James Stuart Freeman. The
only contribution that Reverend Henry Williams made to this document was to sign his name in the space provided by Freeman.




                                                                                                                                         243
244
The final page of what has come to be known, in grievance industry vernacular, as the so-called 'certified copy' of the Treaty
of Waitangi. In the letter section penned by Freeman at the end of the document, Reverend Henry Williams is called upon to
certify his TRANSLATION as being 'as literal a TRANSLATION of the Treaty of Waitangi as the idiom of language will
admit of'. Along with the 130 signatures of chiefs appended to Freeman's "Royal Style" English treaty version, a Maori
TRANSLATION document was also included. The appended, printed Maori Tiriti version that went in the same enclosure is
what Williams was certifying in the space allotted and designated by Freeman. The large despatch of documents, including
Freeman's Royal Style English treaty document and Williams' certified TRANSLATION, was not despatched until the 21st of
February 1840 aboard the Martha. Because of a steady E.S.E. wind, the Herald and the Martha were both locked in the
harbour of the Bay of Islands until the wind abated.

Felton Mathew‟s letter to Sarah Mathew states:

„Tuesday 18th Feby 1840. Yesterday dear Sarah I wrote you a few lines by the Martha, which is to sail tomorrow morning:
expecting that ere this, we should have been on our way to the Thames. It however has blown all day from the ESE...Here we
must lie until the weather moderates.‟ (See: The unpublished journal of Felton Mathew, Special Collections, Auckland Public
Library).

As it turns out, the Martha didn‟t manage to get away from the harbour until the 21st and Hobson‟s final, completed despatches
weren‟t put aboard the Martha until the night of the 20th of February 1840.

So, what was Reverend Henry Williams certifying? It was certainly not the English text, as he was never its author. His function in the
treaty drafting incentive was to act as official translator. All he could ever certify was the work that he had undertaken in behalf of the
government. He was called upon to assure all concerned that his translation of the finalised English text, handed to him at 4 p.m. on
the afternoon of the 4th of February 1840, was as close „as the idiom of the language would admit of‟.

James Stuart Freeman, as stated, wrote the foregoing English treaty document on the 17th of February 1840. On this same day
Reverend William Colenso printed 200 official copies of the Tiriti O Waitangi, based solely on the translation into Maori supplied by
Reverend Henry Williams and his son, Edward. On this same day Hobson and/ or other members of the government made a treaty
presentation to chief Pomaré II, with James Reddy Clendon in attendance. Clendon, whose estate sat adjacent to the PA of chief
Pomaré II, signed in behalf of the chief then added his own witnessing signature and the date. Clendon was given printed Maori treaty
sheets, logically, on this day and, thereafter, wasted no time in sending his despatch No. 6 to the U.S. Secretary of State, John Forsyth.
He had, obviously, been waiting for this printing event, such that he had sufficient documentation to make up a complete despatch.



                                                                                                                                       245
With regards to the two very large despatches that Hobson put together between about the 16th and 20th of February 1840, our
historians, by omission of detail, leave the impression that he didn‟t send even one printed copy of the Maori Tiriti O Waitangi
overseas. Because of an unfavourable wind blowing onto the entrance of the harbour, Hobson was locked in a stalemate and couldn‟t
get away to the Thames in H.M.S. Herald on the day appointed. He took advantage of the available extra time to prepare the two large
despatches, one for Lord Normanby in England and another for Governor Sir George Gipps in Australia. In Hobson‟s letter of the 20th
of February 1840 he stated to Lord Normanby:

„The enclosed copies of letters that I have had the honour to address to his Excellency, Sir George Gipps, will put your
Lordship in possession of the whole of my proceedings since my landing in New Zealand‟.

One very important part of his „proceedings‟ had been the printing events of two Proclamations and Te Tiriti O Waitangi. These
demonstrated, very adequately, the competence of Hobson to his superiors and he was obliged to forward both handwritten and
printed versions of the Maori Tiriti O Waitangi for placement within the Australian or British Parliamentary records.

As Ruth Ross correctly pointed out in 1972, there is a major problem with the general conclusion adhered to by establishment
historians, as „A comparison of all five English versions [sent overseas] with the Maori text makes it clear that the Maori text
was not a translation of any one of these English versions‟. Williams had used some other, now missing, final draft, handed to him
on the 4th of February 1840 and with it had achieved „as Literal a translation of the Treaty of Waitangi as the idiom of the
Language will admit of‟.

As stated, the Maori version documents, from 3 February despatches, do still exist within a beautifully bound volume at the National
Archives of New Zealand, titled, Repatriated Despatches, G-30/1. Within this thick volume can be found the original handwritten or
printed Maori texts that were sent to both Sir George Gipps in N.S.W Australia or to Lord Normanby in London, England on the 8th
and 21st of February 1840. Yet other despatched original documents can be found in the volume G-36/1.

Let‟s now look at Reverend Henry Williams‟ true „certified treaty‟…the one (in either handwritten or printed form) he, as official
TRANSLATOR, was actually putting his signature to in the space provided by James Stuart Freeman.

                                                                Next

                                                            Chapter 17

                                               THE TRUE 'CERTIFIED' TREATY

                                                                                                                                     246
Let's look at Reverend Henry Williams' true 'certified treaty'…the one (in either handwritten or printed form) he, as official
TRANSLATOR, was actually putting his signature to in the space provided by James Stuart Freeman:




                                                                                                                                 247
248
249
250
The single line of writing at the very top of the first page (pg. 25 of Vol. G-30/1) is in the hand of James Stuart Freeman, who
has also initialled the page in the bottom left hand corner. Otherwise, the entire document of Maori Treaty text is, it would
seem, 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 shown was sent to Gipps on the 8th of February 1840, followed by a printed copy two weeks later. 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.

It's unfortunate that Freeman did not have the foresight to write the qualifying statement: 'I certify that the above is as Literal a
translation of the Treaty of Waitangi as the idiom of Language will admit of'' on either this handwritten Maori text sheet by
Williams, for Sir George Gipps, sent on the 8th of February or onto the three printed Maori copies despatched on the 21st of February
1840, rather than at the bottom of his own Royal Style English copy. In that age of innocence, no one could predict the machinations
of a treacherous grievance industry, 140-years into the future, using dirty tricks to distort the meaning of the treaty in order to run an
oppressive extortion racket against duped New Zealanders. The fact that our treaty historians and experts allowed this to happen, or
even "aided and abetted" in the process, despite clear documented evidence proving the grievance industry stance to be blatant fraud,
is abominable and unforgiveable in the extreme (To view the original 'certified treaty' documents, see Volume G-30/1, pp. 25-27,
National Archives of New Zealand, Wellington).




                                                                                                                                       251
252
This is a photograph of the original printed Maori Treaty sent to Governor Sir George Gipps in N.S.W. Australia on the 21st of
February 1840. In a very literal sense, this is the certified Maori text translation to which both James Stuart Freeman and
Reverend Henry Williams were referring directly. Reverend Henry Williams‟ signed attestation certified only this document,
which was the TRANSLATION he‟d accurately created, based upon the finalised English draft he‟d been given to translate into
Maori at 4 p.m. on the 4th of February 1840.




                                                                                                                                 253
254
These two printed Maori version sheets were despatched to Lord Normanby on the 21st of February 1840. They went to
Australia aboard the Martha, whereupon Hobson's direct despatch to Normanby was transferred to H.M.S Achilles. The
materials went by way of 'De Janeiro' (Brazil) and onward to Britain, arriving at the Colonial Office in London on September
28th 1840.

                                                                  Next

                                                              Chapter 17

                  REVEREND HENRY WILLIAMS, PROLIFIC WRITER OF EARLY TREATY COPIES?

Although it has yet to be verified by expert handwriting analysis, it would seem that Reverend Williams has never received due
recognition for several handwritten copies of Te Tiriti O Waitangi that he produced in the first few weeks of February and March of
1840. These he appears to have written in his capacity as official translator and yet our historians vaguely attribute these documents to
others, like Henry Tacy Kemp. It seems very doubtful that Kemp, the 20-year old son of missionaries, James and Charlotte Kemp of
Kerikeri, was employed in any capacity within the Hobson government until about mid-April 1840. While both Henry and Edward
Williams were away on treaty assignments down country, it seems the government needed a translator to help Freeman in their
absence. Perhaps it was Edward Marsh Williams who recommended that his friend, Henry Tacy Kemp, a young man about the same
age as Edward, be brought in from Kerikeri to fill the temporary void.
Early era copies of Te Tiriti O Waitangi, produced by Reverend Henry Williams to fulfil official government requests or
requirements, appear to include:

(1) The large, unsigned Tiriti O Waitangi copy (on paper), bearing 3 waxen seals. This copy is now held by the Catholic Diocese in St.
Mary‟s Bay, Auckland, having been gifted by Dr. Neville Hogg of Dargaville. By its appearance, one could easily speculate that it
was originally written up by Reverend Henry Williams as the master copy, from which Freeman produced the other Tiriti O Waitangi
documents sent around the country to the signing assemblies. Of this impressive document, Dr. Phil Parkinson states that it is an
„early copy with a clear provenance. It was originally sent to Alfred Nesbit Brown and remained at Tauranga, unused, until
another copy (the Tauranga sheet) turned up with Bunbury to be witnessed by James Stack. The unsigned sheet was long held
at The Elms but was sold to the Winstone brothers about 1968. After it was passed in during the sale of their collection it was
purchased by Neville Hogg‟.

(2) The large parchment copy of Te Tiriti O Waitangi carried by Major Bunbury and Edward Marsh Williams to the South Island and
Stewart Island aboard H.M.S Herald.

                                                                                                                                      255
(3) The copy officially requested by James Reddy Clendon. This is still found in the Clendon House Papers at Special Collections,
Auckland Public Library. At the top of page 1 of this 5-page document are the words “True Copy JaStuart Freeman” written
diagonally up in the left hand corner.

(4) Treaty document sent to Sir George Gipps in the first despatch, leaving the Bay of Islands on the 8th of February 1840 aboard the
Samuel Winter.




In the above documents, the author is, undoubtedly, the same throughout, although at a cursory glance it might appear there
are some writing differences. The variations in style seem to be dependent upon whether Reverend Williams was writing a
large, formal treaty sheet or simply providing quickly produced Tiriti O Waitangi documents for Sir George Gipps or U.S.
Consul Clendon. Both thick and thin quill pens were, alternately, used and the pen attributes or speed of production had a
considerable effect on the final outcome. The two large, more formal, Tiriti O Waitangi sheets were executed with great care
and finesse.

Some historians, like Dr. Claudia Orange, have surmised that the Bunbury - Williams‟ parchment treaty (the Herald Treaty) was

                                                                                                                                    256
penned by Henry Tacy Kemp. The Clendon copy is also, vaguely, relegated to this authorship, probably because of the way that the
small “e” is occasionally rendered within the Clendon text. This variation in the “e” can, realistically, be attributed to Williams writing
more rapidly and freely than with the other Tiriti copies he produced for use in the very formal signing ceremonies. Whereas Reverend
Henry Williams had a very clear and legible handwriting style, Henry Tacy Kemp‟s writing was quite illegible and, in many of his
reports, could only be read by someone well acquainted to his jagged, poorly executed style. Here‟s a sample of Kemp‟s handwriting
of about mid-April 1840, after he was employed as a very young interpreter by the Hobson government:




After about 1843, Henry Tacy Kemp seems to have come into prominence and to have secured permanent, responsible
positions within the New Zealand colonial government, which carried him throughout his working life. A large body of his
government functionary associated handwriting can be viewed amongst microfilm copies of the McLean Papers and his
writing style did not improve dramatically as his years in the public service wearied on (see McLean Donald (Sir) Papers 1832
- 1927, originals @ MS- Papers 0032).




                                                                                                                                       257
258
A sample of Henry Tacy Kemp's writing during his years in the government civil service. His style bears little or no
resemblance to that found on the four Maori Tiriti documents nominated herein as having been written by Reverend Henry
Williams in 1840.

It almost infers dereliction of duty that, after 165-years, our treaty experts are “guessing” when attempting to identify the (singular?)
author who wrote two very important, main treaty documents and two associated diplomatic pouch documents. All of these documents
were, seemingly, completed by early March 1840 and three of them appear to have been completed before H.M.S Herald sailed from
the Bay of Islands on February 21st 1840, the Clendon copy being the only exception.

Dr. Phil Parkinson stated the following in his letter of March 31st 2005 to treaty researcher Ross Baker:

„One point you have overlooked in your animadversions against Archives New Zealand is that it has never been strong in
historical research on the documents it holds. This was stated clearly in 1914 when Robert McNab published the second
volume of his Historical records of New Zealand, writing: “There is in New Zealand no department of archives, nor are there
any officers with the duty imposed on them of collecting, arranging and publishing material regarding the infant days of the
Dominion. The writer‟s connection with the work is purely honorary ...” (McNab, Historical records v. 2 pp. ii-iv). Little has
changed. Regrettable as it may be, historical research on such documents is mostly carried out by researchers in other
institutions.‟

Reverend Henry Williams, apart from his theological duties as head of the C.M.S. Mission, worked very hard in the first half of 1840
to establish, by treaty, a British colony in New Zealand. This he did because he firmly believed the benefits to Maori would be
considerable. During this early period of treaty negotiation and signing assemblies around New Zealand, Henry Williams appears to
have penned several clearly worded Tiriti O Waitangi translation duplicates, which were based upon the final English draft he‟d
worked from. He seems to have supplied the precise Tiriti text, in either handwritten or printed form, on demand, to overseas
governments or any other interested parties requiring them. His so-called „certified copy‟ refers solely to his Maori version
translation, copies of which were included in the 21st of February despatches to Gipps and Normanby. Another Maori text copy was
handwritten by Williams (?) to fulfil an official request for a “copy and translation” by U.S. Consul Clendon. Williams‟ document
was marked “true copy” and was accompanied by Busby‟s final English draft.

                                                                  Next

                                                              Chapter 18



                                                                                                                                     259
                                   TINO RANGITIRATANGA, KAWANATANGA & TAONGA

John Littlewood had to stay eternally vigilant and involve himself in several skirmishes in order to force the authorities to place the
Littlewood Treaty document, found amongst family estate papers, on public display. Although it was located in 1989 and handed to
the National Archives in 1992, it was withheld from permanent public view until the year 2000, after John Littlewood forced the issue
by appeals to Members of Parliament.

Although the Littlewood Treaty is, without doubt, the final English draft of the Treaty of Waitangi and the document handed to Henry
Williams for translation into the Maori language at 4 p.m. on the 4th of February 1840, that fact is still kept muted and shrouded in
secrecy. When one passes by the glass cabinet of the darkened down Constitution Room at the National Archives, wherein the
Littlewood Treaty document reposes face up, the tattered old piece of paper hardly rates more than a cursory glance. The second side
of the Littlewood Treaty sheet, which bears the all-important date of its creation on the 4th of February 1840, lies face down and
conveniently hidden out of sight, out of mind and out of harm‟s way. The manner in which the Littlewood Treaty is displayed keeps
it, as well as any overly alert or historically informed treaty researchers, in the dark.
Beside the inconspicuous, seemingly inconsequential document sits a clinically sterile caption telling us:

PABN, 6544, W5179. Contemporary copy of the Treaty of Waitangi, 1840. Transferred to Archives New Zealand by Mr. John
Littlewood.

Which begs the questions:

• Why not show a photo reproduction facsimile of the second page, with the all-important date, the 4th of February 1840, at the
bottom?

• Why not allow the public to see that Article II says, „The Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the chiefs & tribes and
to all the people of New Zealand the possession [chieftainship, tino Rangitiratanga] of their land, dwellings and all their
property‟ [taonga]…??? The Maori version mirrors these words, so why keep the all-important Article II text, in English, face
down and invisible from the public?

• Within the caption to the side of the document, why have the authorities failed to mention the very significant detail that the treaty
sheet, on display before their eyes, is in the handwriting of British Resident, James Busby? He wrote the final draft on the 4th of
February 1840 and this document is both in his handwriting and bears that dynamic date!



                                                                                                                                       260
• Why do the authorities misrepresent the document under the misleading title of a „Contemporary copy of the Treaty of
Waitangi‟? The date at the end of the document shows it isn‟t an after-treaty copy, but the final pre-treaty draft. There was no Tiriti O
Waitangi in existence until the 5th of February 1840, so the Littlewood Treaty, bearing the date of the day before, can‟t be a back-
translation of the Maori copy. Neither can it be an earlier rough draft that preceded Busby‟s 3rd of February 1840, incomplete draft
submission to Hobson.

Far from informing the public that they‟re viewing the all-important, final English draft of the Treaty of Waitangi, handed to Reverend
Henry Williams at 4 p.m. on the 4th of February 1840 for translation into the Maori language, a treaty commentator has used the
display to promote personal viewpoints. Above the Littlewood Treaty document a large explanatory caption almost defensively and
rather gratingly blurts out:

THE TREATY AND SOVEREIGNTY

British settlement and control of New Zealand legitimised on the grounds that Maori signatories had ceded sovereignty to the
Crown. However in the Maori language version of the Treaty the notion of „sovereignty‟ was expressed as „Kawanatanga‟, a
term derived from the word Kawana (Governor). Neither Kawanatanga nor Kawana carried the connotations of absolute
authority which were central to nineteenth century European understandings of sovereignty. „Tino Rangitiratanga
approximates, more closely to sovereignty than „Kawanatanga‟, but the second article of the treaty guaranteed this power to
the Maori signatories, not the crown.

This poorly worded, politically slanted caption seems to have been produced by someone who has no knowledge of what Te Tiriti O
Waitangi actually says. In fact, what he or she has concluded utterly misrepresents what the „second article‟ of the treaty clearly
states:

In Article II the „Tino Rangitiratanga‟ referred to is available to „the chiefs & tribes AND TO ALL THE PEOPLE OF NEW
ZEALAND‟… „ki nga Rangatira ki nga hapu-KI NGA TANGATA KATOA O NU TIRANI‟.

The author of this propaganda laced caption is invited to read the Littlewood Treaty English document that sits very close nearby, or
indeed the official Maori Treaty version derived therefrom, sitting diagonally adjacent in another case. For the past thirty years
uninformed activists of this ilk have severely distorted our treaty and transformed it into something its authors never intended it to be.

It is claimed that Reverend Henry Williams, in his (purported) gross ineptitude and a poor understanding of the Maori language, used
an utterly inadequate word (kawanatanga - governorship) to translate the concept of sovereignty, as understood by the British. By

                                                                                                                                       261
this (claimed) unfortunate mistake, we‟re told, sovereignty remained steadfastly in the possession of the chiefs and the British ended
up with little more than a right to some governance. According to some of our present-day social historians, Reverend Williams
should have clearly stipulated that the chiefs were required to cede their „mana‟ to Queen Victoria. In reference to this untenable,
assertion a correspondent to Investigate Magazine wrote:

„To use „mana‟ to translate „sovereignty‟ would make no sense in any case. Williams‟ intimacy with Maori social practice, if
not the deeper aspects of language, meant that he knew mana was the essence of a chief‟s dignity - both as a descendent of
great ancestors or in terms of courageous deeds. This is not something that could be ceded to the Queen of England and it is
not something that the British Queen or officials or missionaries expected to be ceded. Claudia Orange agrees that mana was
not the right word, as „rangitiratanga and kawanatanga each has its own mana‟. A chief‟s mana was the exercise of his
rangitiratanga, his chieftainship. This the chiefs were retaining, and the missionaries wanted them to retain, under the Treaty.
But the chiefs also appreciated the mana of the British Queen. They gave to her and her government the right and authority to
establish instruments of law and regulation on New Zealand shores‟ (see Investigate Magazine, letter from Samuel Carpenter,
Onehunga).

In commenting on Dr. Paul Moon‟s analysis of what a „proper translation‟ by Reverend Williams should have produced, another
correspondent wrote:

„Secondly, his support for the assertion that Maori Christians would have understood a kawana (governor) to be inferior to a
rangitira (chief) because, in the Maori New Testament, kawana Pilate was subject to rangitira Caesar. Has he not read the rest
of the book, and learned how Pilate the kawana wielded absolute authority over the elders, chief priests and leaders (in Maori,
kaumatua, tohunga nui and rangitira) of the Jews, even unto death? Any Maori Christian would well have understood the
concept of kawanatanga, governorship: that is, that Hobson, under Queen Victoria, would hold full authority over Maori
chiefs‟ (see Investigate Magazine, Nov. 2004, letter from Roger Evans, Kerikeri).

The caption that sits above the Littlewood Treaty document in the Constitution Room display case also mentions how the rights,
enshrined within the Treaty of Waitangi, are exclusively for the Maori signatories. According to what some people want us to believe,
any time the term, „all the people of New Zealand‟ is mentioned it refers only to Maori, and the settlers are not included within the
confines of the phrase. This line of argument, unsurprisingly, is adhered to by Dr. Paul Moon, who wrote the following to Investigate
Magazine in February 2004:

„Second, the claim is made in the article that the phrase „all the people of New Zealand‟ was surreptitiously written out of the
Treaty. This is based upon two incorrect assumptions: that someone deliberately removed phrases from the Treaty - for which

                                                                                                                                     262
there is no evidence at all; and that this particular phrase should be interpreted as having applied to every person living in
New Zealand in 1840 - both Maori and European. This latter postulation is demonstrably wrong. The phrase „all the people of
New Zealand - in the setting of New Zealand in 1840, would simply be another way of referring to Maori. There are several
documents from this era in which this sort of phrase is used specifically to refer exclusively to Maori. It does not apply to
Europeans, who are nearly always referred to in this period separately from „the people of New Zealand‟.*

*Footnote: In pre-colonial times, Maori were often referred to as “The New Zealanders” (a term not found in the Treaty of Waitangi
text). By the 1840‟s, with such a large European population in New Zealand (over 2000), the term, “the people of New Zealand”,
was used to describe the amalgamation and mélange of all ethnicities living in the country.

Any way one wants to look at it, in recent decades the inherent rights and protections of non-Maori New Zealanders, under the Treaty
of Waitangi, have been removed. The, now meaningless, words are still there in Te Tiriti O Waitangi, but have been pushed into the
background and rendered ineffective. A substitute Article II text, from an early, superseded English rough draft, has been inserted and
empowered in the place of Article II of Te Tiriti O Waitangi. By this sleight of hand trick, non-Maori New Zealanders have been
„surreptitiously written out of the Treaty.‟

Dr. Paul Moon seemingly seeks to interpret the thinking and intention of Captain William Hobson, who had travelled halfway around
the world to fulfil a commission for Queen Victoria. Are we to believe that, in setting up a British colony, where sovereignty over the
country and its people was to be ceded to Queen Victoria, the European settlers or family of the Queen were not to be included? The
British knew what a British colony was, as they‟d set up several of them. The Maoris knew what a British colony was, as many Maori
people had visited Britain or Australia and received formal educations in both those locations. A number of Maori were living
permanently in Australia, while still others were commuting back and forth as crew on ships and bringing descriptive reports to their
chiefs.

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:

• In the Preamble section of the final English draft, Hobson addresses the „chiefs and people of New Zealand‟. Reverend Henry
Williams translated this as „ki nga Rangitira me nga Hapu o Nu Tirani‟ or the chiefs and families of New Zealand. The Preamble
sets the stage for the rest of the treaty and explains why Hobson has been sent. In content it is directed towards the sovereign chiefs
and their tribes people and asks them to consider ceding sovereignty to Queen Victoria under the conditions that are described in the
Articles that follow.



                                                                                                                                    263
• In Article III of the final English draft, Hobson again uses the phrase „the people of New Zealand‟. Reverend Henry Williams
translated this as „nga tangata Maori katoa o Nu Tirani‟ or all the Maoris of New Zealand. In this Article the content is directed at
Maori, as they are being told they will become British subjects and receive the same rights as all the people of Britain.

• In Article II of the final English draft Hobson uses the phrase, „to the chiefs and tribes and to all the people of New Zealand‟.
This is a very general Article, directed towards all of the inhabitants of New Zealand, Maori and settlers alike. It guarantees to
everyone that private property and goods will remain with the owners under the new regime and will not be forfeited to the Queen.
Reverend Henry Williams translated this phrase as „ki nga Rangitira, ki nga hapu, ki nga tangata katoa o Nu Tirani‟. In so doing
he, very carefully, made the distinction to include Rangitira (Maori chiefs), Hapu (Maori families) and all the people of New
Zealand (Maori individuals or settlers from all nations, living in New Zealand or any „arriving‟ later). If Williams had wished to state
that the rights mentioned in Article II were exclusively for Maori, then he would have used the terminology of Article III, „nga
tangata Maori katoa o Nu Tirani‟.

Some grievance industry advocates try to argue that Article II relates solely and exclusively to Maori, on the basis of a response letter
sent by Reverend Henry Williams to Bishop Selwyn on the 12th of July 1847. Williams was called upon to comment concerning the
legality, under the Treaty of Waitangi, of a move by Governor George Grey, K.B.C., to take the vast acreages of unoccupied lands of
New Zealand into the ownership of the Crown. Governor Grey advocated such a move in the Charter of 1846.
In his response to Bishop Selwyn, Williams was commenting about what he had explained the Treaty to mean to the Maori people in
1840, based upon the generalised discussion and concepts of the drafters at the time:

"...As I did explain the nature of the treaty in 1840, I must continue to explain, in self defence; for I must not be accessory to
such deception, but continue to stand upon the treaty alone. ...My view of the Treaty of Waitangi is, as it ever was, that it was
the Magna Charta of the aborigines of New Zealand. Your Lordship has requested information in writing of what I explained
to the natives, and how they understood it. I confined myself solely to the tenor of the treaty:

That the Queen had kind wishes towards the chiefs and people of New Zealand,
And was desirous to protect them in their rights as chiefs, and rights of property,
And that the Queen was desirous that a lasting peace and good understanding should be preserved with them.

That the Queen had thought it desirable to send a Chief as a regulator of affairs with the natives of New Zealand.

That the native chiefs should admit the Government of the Queen throughout the country, from the circumstance that
numbers of her subjects are residing in the country, and are coming hither from Europe and New South Wales.

                                                                                                                                      264
That the Queen is desirous to establish a settled government, to prevent evil occurring to the natives and Europeans who are
now residing in New Zealand without law.

That the Queen therefore proposes to the chiefs these following articles:
Firstly, - The chiefs shall surrender to the Queen for ever the Government of the country, for the preservation of order and
peace.
Secondly, - The Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the chiefs and tribes, and to each individual native, their full
rights as chiefs, their rights of possession of their lands, and all their other property of every kind and degree. The chiefs
wishing to sell any portion of their lands, shall give to the Queen the right of pre-emption of their lands.
Thirdly - That the Queen, in consideration of the above, will protect the natives of New Zealand, and will impart to them all
the rights and privileges of British subjects.

The instruction of Captain Hobson was, "not to allow any one to sign the treaty till he fully understood it;" to which
instruction I did most strictly attend. I explained the treaty clause by clause at the signing of the same, and again to all the
natives in this part of the island previously to the destruction of Kororareka, on March 11, 1845; I maintained the faith of the
treaty and the integrity of the British Government, and that the word of Her Majesty was sacred, and could not be violated.
That the natives to whom I explained the treaty understood the nature of the same, there can be no doubt; ..." (see The Life of
Henry Williams, Archdeacon of Waimate, by Hugh Carleton, pp 153-157, by Wilson & Horton, Auckland, 1877.

As Head of the C.M.S. Mission and in his official capacity as the translator of the treaty into the Maori language in 1840, Williams‟
latter era comments to Selwyn in 1847 were devoted to explaining his understanding of the Maori perspective, including what the
treaty meant for Maori individuals. He was not, in this instance, called upon to explain what the treaty meant to the settlers, which
aspect was equally as valid and binding.

The treaty was, indeed, the Magna Charta of Maori individuals, especially those of lower rank or slave class within the tribal caste
system. It gave many of them substantial rights, often for the very first time.

Ngai-Tahu historian, Jean Jackson states matter-of -factly that British intervention, eventually, stopped the rampant practices of „Utu‟
(revenge) and „Muru‟ (plunder), decisions by divination, sacrifice to appease gods, construction sacrifice [placing slaves beneath the
foundation poles of meeting houses], religious cannibalism, slaves penned for cannibal consumption, slaves penned for labour, slave
castration, manhood ritual tattooing, circumcision, abduction of women and children, raping of enemy women, etc. (See: Maori
Chiefs Asked For Queen Victoria‟s Laws, Book 9, pg. 161, Bracken Woods Projects Limited, P.O. Box 6411, Wellesley St.,
Auckland, N.Z. ISBN 0-476-01344-5).

                                                                                                                                       265
The treaty, eventually, freed the slaves, although for some individuals, like the Moriori of the Chathams, that freedom came so late
that their diminished gene pool left them on the brink of extinction, as a unique racial grouping.

As stated, the Maori Tiriti O Waitangi is never used nowadays and has been deliberately rendered a legislative nonentity. It‟s only
there for show or as a photogenic prop, to give the false illusion that its content is somehow being referred to and upheld in law. In
truth it is utterly ignored and has been dumped as our treaty, despite the fact that Hobson said that the Maori version was „de facto‟
the treaty…or the only Treaty of Waitangi that exists.

One would think it a fairly basic premise that, when the British wrote the treaty 165-years ago, they fully intended to include the rights
of British or other settlers in the clauses. Despite such rudimentary and easy to grasp logic, advocates of the treaty grievance industry
aggressively try to lure us into believing that the, otherwise, crystal-clear wording of the treaty means something altogether different
and is, in fact, a formula for apartheid.

So, did the chiefs know what they were doing in 1840 by signing the treaty and ceding sovereignty to Queen Victoria?

One has only to read the speeches, both for and against, of the chiefs at Waitangi to realise that they understood the full implications
of what they were doing. Several chiefs, who were affiliated with and influenced by the Catholic Bishop, Pompallier, spoke of being
delivered into a state of „slavery‟ the moment they signed away their sovereignty.

Reverend Henry Williams wrote: „There was considerable excitement amongst the people, greatly increased by the irritating
language of the ill-disposed Europeans, stating to the chiefs in the most insulting language, that their country was gone, and
they now were only taurekareka (slaves). Many came to us to speak upon this new state of affairs. We gave them but one
version, explaining clause by clause, showing the advantages to them of being taken under the fostering care of the British
Government, by which act they would become one people with the British, in suppression of wars, and of every lawless act,
under one Sovereignty, and one law, human and divine‟.

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,

                                                                                                                                         266
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).

This impression of attitudes displayed, as mentioned by Reverend Warren, is further substantiated by the speeches made by many of
New Zealand‟s paramount chiefs at the Kohimarama conference of July 1860.

It is very evident that the 540 chiefs who signed the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840 had weighed in the balance future prospects for their
people and saw this as the best or only practical course of action. To say that the signed only for a blanket "koha" is to diminish their
reputations or dignity. For the most part, the chiefs were very astute and shrewd people who assessed situations deeply after
consultation, before making an informed decision. Upwards of 60,000 of their people had been killed, maimed or enslaved during the
Musket Wars. Now the French were making moves to annex New Zealand.

                                                                  Next

                                                              Chapter 20

                     THE TRUE COLONIAL HISTORY OF NEW ZEALAND IN A FEW PARAGRAPHS

If you‟re not an “old-wrinkly” like me, then you‟re suffering from the distinct disadvantage of never having been taught the true
colonial history of your country at school. You can find out what it was easily enough, but you‟ll first have to biff your new,
politically correct, history textbooks in the rubbish where they belong and head for the libraries and archives to do some deep
research, using reliable old books, papers or microfilm duplications thereof. What you‟ll find out is that the British never wanted to set
up a colony in New Zealand and that the British Parliamentary Papers of the 1830‟s will bear this out. Petitions came before the
British Parliament from Maori chiefs, settlers and missionaries alike to set up a Protectorate and, later, a fully instituted Colony.
Many Maori had visited Britain by 1840 or were living semi-permanently in Australia, and knew very well what a British colony was
or what the effect would be should Britain agree to become involved in New Zealand‟s tumultuous and complicated affairs.

You‟ll also find out that Hobson had to comply with stringent conditions, outlined within a very humane, 4200-word brief from Lord
Normanby of the Colonial Office. A colony could only be established in accordance with a high level of justice, integrity and
humanity, as spelled out by Normanby (see Lord Normanby‟s Brief to Hobson at the end of this book).



                                                                                                                                      267
Between about 1820 and 1840 Maori had lost around 60,000 of their people, either killed, maimed or enslaved, during the “Musket
Wars”, initiated by Nga-Puhi chief, Hongi Hika. These wars, and the terrible carnage committed during them, had nothing to do with
the British, but were the result of utu or revenge and the settling of old scores between the warring Maori tribes. Hongi‟s forces, armed
with 300 muskets acquired in Australia during his return voyage from Britain, had been used to decimate tribes in Tamaki, Thames,
Rotorua, Waikato or in campaigns extending to Cook Strait.
Hongi Hika‟s need for revenge or “utu” stemmed from the battle of Moremonui in 1807. In this battle Nga-Puhi were severely beaten
by Ngati Whatua and Hongi‟s sister, brother and half brother were killed. (Refer to: The Musket Wars, by R.B. Crosby).




                                                                                                                                     268
269
An ink drawing replica of James Barry‟s 1820 portrait of Hongi Hika, who unleashed an era of terrible carnage by starting
the “Musket Wars”. These battles were solely between Maori tribes and were based upon “utu” or the need for revenge for
past grievances.

By 1840 most Maori chiefs, like Tamati Waka Néné or his brother Patuone saw the situation as utterly hopeless, unless the British
monarchy could take over the country and establish laws to quell the intertribal fighting. Ironically, Tamati Waka Néné had been one
of Hongi Hika‟s generals and had been on a rampage of death all the way to Cook Strait from his home in the far north of New
Zealand. It was inevitable that Nga-Puhi were going to have to pay dearly for the carnage they had unleashed upon the other tribes
during the musket wars and southern Maori were rearming to avenge the terrible wrongs committed against them by Hongi‟s forces.
Néné, it would appear, also knew that the British had beaten the French in the Battle of Trafalgar and were the most powerful naval
force on the sea. With the threat of French annexation of New Zealand looming, it was time to vigorously solicit British intervention
and the establishment of a colony in New Zealand. Such a move would head off the reprisals that must surely come from southern
Maori or the mounting, unhealthy interest the French were showing towards the region.

It was only after 1837 that the British Parliament warmed, slowly and very reluctantly, to the idea of a colony, mostly because
Governor Sir George Gipps in Australia asked them to establish one in order to head off French annexation ambitions of New
Zealand. Gipps did not want the longtime, traditional enemy of Britain established so close by and able to use New Zealand as a base
of operations or staging area to threaten Australia.

Nga-Puhi chief Tamati Waka Néné had seen his last hope for stable Maori government and unity evaporate when Confederation of
United Chiefs signatories, Titore and Pomaré II, commenced hostilities between themselves in 1837. In this war chief Hone Heke, the
nephew of Hongi Hika, was one of Titore‟s generals. During the 1837 intertribal fighting, Captain William Hobson was assigned to
sail in from Australia on H.M.S. Rattlesnake to display a strong British presence and initiate some gunboat diplomacy, in order to
protect settlers caught between the warring Maori factions. Hobson later wrote a long report recommending the establishment of a
British Colony in New Zealand. The British Parliament had traditionally opposed any such move, ever since Captain James Cook first
visited New Zealand in 1769. Hobson was later chosen to attempt to secure a treaty, which the British would only enter into if it were
based upon the willing transfer of Maori-held, chiefly sovereignty to Queen Victoria.

In Hobson‟s opening remarks to the Waitangi assembly on the 5th of February 1840 he reminded the chiefs that, „You yourselves
have often asked the King of England to extend his protection unto you. Her Majesty now offers you that protection in this
treaty‟…„But as the law of England gives no civil powers to Her Majesty out of her domain, her efforts to do you good will be
futile unless you consent‟ (see The Treaty of Waitangi, by T.L. Buick, pg. 122).



                                                                                                                                   270
In regards to Chief Tamati Waka Néné‟s admonitions at the Waitangi assembly to have sovereignty transferred to Queen Victoria, a
1938 Internal Affairs publication states:

„Waaka Néné went on to point out the positive advantages of ceding their country to Queen Victoria.* “What did we do before
the pakeha came?” he asked. “We fought continually. But now we can plant our grounds, and the pakeha will bring plenty of
trade to our shores. Then let us keep him here. Let us be friends together” (see Centennial Portraits, No. 4 - Tamati Waaka
Néné, pg. 10.).

Of the later cession of sovereignty by the chiefs to Queen Victoria, Sir Apirana Ngata stated:

„If you think these things are wrong, then blame your ancestors when they gave away their rights when they were strong‟.

Although researchers such as myself are now labelled “Revisionists” (see government website reference to my website) because we
will not embrace the undocumented, nouveau and politically correct versions of regional history, thirty years ago or before it would
have been our present-day gaggle of social historians who were called “Revisionists”. Pseudo-history is centrally important to social
engineering!

Despite the extant records of Tamati Waka Néné‟s speech at Waitangi on the 5th of February 1840 and documented facts related to his
unwavering loyalty to Queen Victoria for all the years of his life thereafter, the government‟s treaty website now states:
„At Waitangi he [Waka Néné] supported the lieutenant governor, but he would not have accepted the treaty as a total cession
of sovereignty‟ (based upon whose uninformed, prejudiced, political-bent?). The historical record shows otherwise and the vast
majority of Maori both welcomed and supported the establishment of British sovereignty and rule over the country.

The clearly stated intention of the British, from the very outset, was that ceded territories were to become British soil and anyone
living thereon was to become a British subject of Queen Victoria, subservient to and the recipients of British laws, protections and
rights. All subjects were to be equal under one law and one flag, with no provision for partnerships with the Crown or special
customary rights of ownership over anyone else. Even as Hobson was sailing to New Zealand to fulfil this commission, an
interdepartmental letter written in Britain stated that if Hobson were unsuccessful in securing a treaty, the British would abandon all
future plans of ever establishing a colony in New Zealand. Although the British had been invited in, their parliamentarians still had
reservations and grave misgivings about the wisdom of the venture.

Lieutenant-Governor Hobson was very successful and, ultimately, gained the adherence of 540 chiefs. One of the first things he
instituted was a review of all settler land purchases prior to the establishment of the British colony. In a Proclamation read by him at

                                                                                                                                      271
Kororareka Church on the 30th of January 1840, he stated Britain‟s intention to review all land titles. Most often the previously
purchased land was given back to the former Maori owners. Thereafter it had to be repurchased by a government appointee, before
being subdivided into titled allotments for the settlers. Hobson wished to make a fresh, clean start.

Under instructions from Lord Normanby, an Official Protector of the Maoris was one of the first administrative positions created by
Lieutenant-Governor Hobson and a Land Court was set up where Maori owners had to prove that they were the rightful owners of
land before it could be sold. According to the exhaustive research by historian, Jean Jackson, Maori were lining up to sell property. To
stop disputes, the Maori owners could only sell land to the government representative of Queen Victoria and not directly to any
individual settlers (see Article II of the Treaty of Waitangi).

Many areas of New Zealand were purchased more than once by the settlers prior to 1840 or by the government after 1840. In the case
of Taranaki, as elsewhere, we have on record about five sale agreements, showing that either The New Zealand Company, other
settler‟s organisations or, later, the Hobson government, made legitimate, honourable purchases with agreed-to sums being paid, titles
of sale properly secured and ownership transferred.

Every paramount chief of Taranaki, whether conquered, dispossessed and vanquished (like Wiremu Kingi) or the conqueror and new
owner (Te Wherowhero of Waikato), were fully paid after formal negotiations for the land there and the sale agreement documents,
signed by both willing seller-willing buyer, still languish in our archives. Despite this the British are still accused of theft.

Te Wherowhero‟s sale of Taranaki to Hobson‟s government took place on the 31st of January 1842 (see Te Wherowhero‟s Taranaki
Sale Agreement complete with drawn maps, held at Land Information New Zealand). This payment was in addition to earlier
payment made to Chief Wiremu Kingi at Waikanae by William Wakefield or additional repayments to purchase the same territories,
several times over, in the years to follow. Wakefield made two substantial purchases from Wiremu Kingi (Te Whiti) and other chiefs,
including Te Rauparaha, on the 25th of October and the 8th of November 1839 (see Copy Of The Deed Of Purchase, New Zealand
Company, Deeds 7 & 8).

The Taranaki Province was fairly typical of the tricky and treacherous land purchase situation encountered all over New Zealand and
Hobson‟s new government had to try to rectify this exasperating problem by setting up a Land Court and forbidding further direct land
sales from Maori to the settlers. Some Maori vendors or entrepreneurs were even going to Australia and arranging sales of New
Zealand land they didn‟t own, which caused major problems for the duped settler purchasers when they later attempted to take
possession of their purchases and set up house.




                                                                                                                                    272
In the book, The History of Taranaki, published in 1878 by B. Wells, a letter from the warrior chief Ihaia Kirikumara, written in
conjunction with his friend Tamati Tiraura, is addressed to the settlers in New Plymouth. In this the chiefs mention three of the earlier
purchases of Taranaki.

„Friends, formerly we, the Maoris, lived alone in New Zealand; we did wrong one to another, we ate one another, we
exterminated one another. Some had deserted the land, some were enslaved, the remnant that were spared went to seek other
lands.

Now this was the arrangement of this Ngatiawa land. Mokau was the boundary on the north, Ngamotu on the south; beyond
was Taranaki and Ngatiruanui. All was quiet deserted; the land, the sea, the streams, the lakes, the forests, the rocks, were
deserted; the food, the property, the work was deserted; the dead and sick were deserted; the landmarks were deserted.
Then came the Pakeha hither by sea from other dwellings, they came to this land and the Maori allowed them - they came by
chance to this place - they came to a place whose inhabitants had left it. There were few men here - the men were a remnant, a
handful returned from slavery.

And the Pakeha asked, where are the men of this place? And they answered, they have been driven away by war, we few have
come back from another land. And the Pakeha said, are you willing to sell us this land. And they replied, we are willing to sell
it that it may not be barren; presently our enemies will come, and our places will be taken from us again.

So payment was made; it was not said, let the place be taken, although the men were few; the Pakeha did not say, let it be
taken, but the land was quietly paid for.

Now the Pakeha thoroughly occupied the purchases made with their money; and the Maoris living in the land of bondage, and
those who had fled, heard that the land had been occupied and they said, Ah! Ah! the land has revived, let us return to the
land. So they returned. Their return was in a friendly manner. Their thought of the Pakeha was, let us dwell together, let us
work together.

The Maoris began to dispute with the Pakeha. When the Governor saw this he removed the Pakeha to one spot to dwell.
Afterwards the Pakeha made a second payment for the land, and afterwards a third; and then I said, Ah! Ah! Very great
indeed is the goodness of the Pakeha, he has not said that the payment ceases at the first time.

My friends the Pakeha, wholly through you this land and the men of this land have become independent; do not say that I
have seen this your goodness to day for the first time. I knew it formally, at the coming here of Governor Grey, I was urgent

                                                                                                                                      273
that the land might be surrendered and paid for by him; that we might live here together, we the Maori and the Pakeha. And
my urgency did not end there but through the days of Governor Grey.................‟.

This letter was written by the warrior chief Ihaia Kirikumara and his friend Tamati Tiraura at Waitara on 15 July 1860 to the settlers of
Taranaki and records that the land in that area was paid for three times over (see The History of Taranaki, published in 1878 by B.
Wells).

Several years after the treaty was signed the government experienced some bloody insurrections, when groups like the Hau haus or
King movement rebelled against or rejected the sovereignty agreements that had been entered into in their regions. After settlers were
murdered, the government troops were sent in. Fighting alongside the British troops, as allies, were other Maori tribes. They were not
going to tolerate a return to the old ways, marked by slaughter, slavery, cannibalism, eternal unease and constant intertribal fighting.
In all, over 90% of Maori iwis, whose chiefs signed the Treaty of Waitangi and made them British subjects, were always loyal to
Queen Victoria and the new government of New Zealand.
If anyone doubts their resolve or loyalty, they are admonished to read the speeches of the paramount chiefs at the Kohimarama
Conference, convened by Governor Gore Brown in July 1860. Many Maori joined the “Armed Constabulary” and represented a
large section of the force that attempted to keep the peace.

Were it not for the intervention of the troops of chiefs Tamati Waka Néné, Eruera Patuone and Mohi Tawhai in 1845, after Chief
Hone Heke‟s forces burnt the town of Kororareka / Russell, it‟s doubtful that the treaty could have survived. Néné„s troops, in alliance
with those of the other northern chiefs, held Heke‟s rebel forces at bay for a considerable period before any British forces could be
mustered to come and help. Of this spontaneous intervention by Tamati Waka Néné to oppose Heke‟s northern rebellion, a 1938
Internal Affairs publication states:

„There is little doubt - as one chronicle puts it - “That Waaka Néné and his allies were not only the preservation of the country
as a British colony, but also the preservation of the troops.” His men scouted ahead through the thick bush to clear the route
of hostile natives‟.

The reasons for Hone Heke‟s rebellion are several and reasonably clear. His mana was slighted when one of the slave women of his
tribe, Hinerangi Kotiro, moved into Kororareka township to live with the local butcher, William Lord. She made derogatory
reference to Hone Heke, calling him a “pigs head” and the comment got back to Hone Heke. This insult from a slave resulted in Heke
and his followers ransacking Lord‟s family home, store and butcher‟s shop. They took everything with them, including Hinerangi
Kotiro. She survived her forced repatriation and returned to live with William Lord.



                                                                                                                                     274
Hone Heke had been growing increasingly discontent and hostile for several years, due to the loss of former lucrative business
enterprises, which had all but ceased after the treaty had been signed and the seat of government had moved to Auckland in 1841. Up
until 1840, as many as thirty visiting foreign vessels could be found moored at the bay at any one time, and the business opportunities,
in plying sailors with women, or trading to & fro for goods, had been astounding. For many years this activity had provided Hone‟s
section of Nga-Puhi with the muskets and ammunition that made them such a formidable force in their attacks on other tribes. Because
of the cession of sovereignty to Queen Victoria and custom levies or port duties now flowing into government coffers, Hone‟s
wellspring of foreign goods and revenues, which had always been there since the days of Hongi Hika, had dried up. The Bay of
Islands region was, increasingly, becoming a backwater, as the primary port of call was now at Auckland (see New Zealand‟s First
War, by T.L. Buick, Chapt. II, pp. 33-39).

Following the containment of Heke‟s bloody rebellion in the north, Patuone, Néné‟s elder brother, established himself permanently in
Takapuna, Auckland in order to protect the Seat of Government. He remained there until he died at an age estimated to be about 108,
on September 19th 1872. Similarly, Tamati Waka Néné moved from his Hokianga home to Russell to protect that region.




                                                                                                                                    275
The neatly tended grave of Eruera Mahi Patuone at the Anglican Holy Trinity church graveyard on the slopes of Mt. Victoria,
Devonport, Auckland. Patuone was the son of Tapua, who was a tohunga and warrior chief of Ngati-Hao hapu in the Utakura-
Waihou region. His memorial plaque calls him „a warm friend of Europeans, supporter of the Queen's Laws and peacemaker


                                                                                                                        276
with his own countrymen‟. As stated by other chiefs, like Te Wherowhero of Waikato, who supported the fledgling British
colony, any threat to the seat of government would have to “come across his body”.




                                                                                                                          277
Chief Tamati Waka Néné, who, in alliance with his brother Chief Eruera Patuone, Chief Mohi Tawhia of Mahurehure,
Waima and Chief Taonui Makoare defeated and contained Heke‟s rebellion. Without the unwavering loyalty of many chiefs
like these throughout the country, Queen Victoria‟s British colony in New Zealand could not have survived.




                                                 Chief Eruera Patuone


                                                                                                                    278
Chief Mohi Tawhia


                    279
There were some confiscations of land during the era of “sovereignty wars” (deliberately misrepresented as “land wars” by the
grievance industry). In most cases the land was later given back or paid for by the government. The wars had been very expensive and
financially crippling for the almost bankrupt, cash-strapped New Zealand government and the actual purchase values of confiscated
territories was far less than the cost of the wars. Moreover, confiscations to pay for the wars were limited to unused wastelands
adjacent to or far removed from the rebel Maori settlements, not the sites of iwi occupancy, farming and hunter-gatherer sustenance.

Of this unfortunate era, Sir Apirana Ngata stated in his book, The Treaty of Waitangi- An Explanation:
„Some have said that these confiscations were wrong and that they contravene the articles of the Treaty of Waitangi, but the
chiefs placed in the hands of the Queen of England, the Sovereignty and authority to make laws. Some sections of the Maori
people violated that authority, war arose and blood was spilled. The law came into operation and the land was taken as
payment. This in itself is Maori custom-revenge-plunder to avenge a wrong. It was their chiefs who ceded that right to the
Queen. The confiscations cannot, therefore, be objected to in the light of the Treaty‟.

It was formerly an accepted fact by our fifties generation that all claims had been settled by about 1947, with exception to some land
loaned by the iwis for military camps during W.W.II., which should have returned to their rightful owners at the termination of
hostilities. A few of the camps were still in use by the military or government for decades after W.W.II. and a former U.S. military
camp at Raglan had been turned into a golf course.

The point is: New Zealanders have got to start researching true historical documents, independently and of themselves, in order to get
a real appreciation or grasp on what has actually transpired in our history. To rely on modern-day social engineer historians with
political agendas to interpret, on our behalf, what has happened is a formula for disaster. These days, those who control our colonial
history have reduced it to the level of manipulative propaganda. As George Orwell put it so eloquently:

„Those who control the past, control the future; Those who control the future, control the present; Those who control the
present, control the past‟.

Some of the research material in this book has been made available by direct descendants of Eruera Patuone. The family is also the
progeny of James Clendon and several other signatories to the treaty. They are righteously indignant that political opportunists have,
lately, tampered with and all but destroyed their dignified treaty with Queen Victoria, put in place by farsighted, honoured family
forebears.




                                                                                                                                    280
By the 1950‟s and 1960‟s we were a very placid and together little country and our history was not in dispute, as we had, pretty much,
all the documents we needed to refer to…with exception to one very important founding document, which our historians openly
acknowledged had been lost in early 1840.

                 Thankfully, Beryl Needham and John Littlewood found that document anew in 1989 and gave it back
                                              “to all the people of New Zealand”.

                                                                  Next

LORD NORMANBY'S WRITTEN INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN TO HOBSON ON THE 14th OF AUGUST 1839 IN ENGLAND

We have not been insensible to the importance of New Zealand to the interests of Great Britain in Australia, nor unaware of the great
natural resources by which that country is distinguished, or that its geographical position must, in seasons, either of peace or war,
enable it in the hands of civilised men to exercise a paramount influence in that quarter of the globe. There is probably no part of the
Earth in which colonisation could be effected with greater or surer prospect of national advantage.

On the other hand the Ministers of the Crown have been restricted by still higher motives, from engaging in such an enterprise. They
have deferred to the advice of the Committee of the House of Commons in the year 1836 to enquire into the state of the aborigines
residing in the vicinity of our colonial settlements, and have concurred with that Committee, in thinking that the increase in national
wealth and power, promised by the acquisition of New Zealand, would be most inadequate compensation for the injury which must be
inflicted on this kingdom itself by embarking on a measure essentially unjust, and but too certainly fraught with calamity to a
numerous and inoffensive people whose title to the soil and to the sovereignty to New Zealand is indisputable and has been solemnly
recognised by the British Government. We retain these opinions in unimpaired force and though circumstances entirely beyond our
control have at length compelled us to alter our course, I do not scruple to avow that we depart from it with extreme reluctance.

The necessity for the interposition of Government has, however, become too evident to admit to any further inaction. The reports
which have reached this office within the last few months establish the facts that about the commencement of 1838, a body of not less
than two thousand British subjects, has become permanent inhabitants of New Zealand, that amongst them were many persons of bad
and doubtful character - convicts who had fled from our penal settlements, or seamen who had deserted their ships - and that these
people, unrestrained by any law and amenable to no Tribunals, were alternately the authors and victims of every species of crime and
outrage. It further appears that extensive cessions of land have been obtained from the natives and that several hundred persons have
recently sailed from this country to occupy and cultivate these lands. The spirit of adventure thus been effectually roused it can be no
longer doubted that an extensive settlement of British subjects will be rapidly established in New Zealand, and that unless protected

                                                                                                                                      281
and restrained by necessary laws and institutions they will repeat unchecked in that corner of the globe the same process of war and
spoliation under which uncivilised tribes have almost invariably disappeared as often as they have been brought into the immediate
vicinity of emigrates from the nations of Christendom. To mitigate, and if possible avert these disasters, and to rescue the emigrants
themselves from the evils of a lawless state of society, it has been resolved to adopt the most effective measures for establishing
amongst them a settled form of civil Government. To accomplish this design is the principal object of your mission.

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.
Believing, however, that their own welfare would, under the circumstances I have mentioned, be best promoted by the surrender to
Her Majesty of a right now so precarious and little more than nominal, and persuaded that the benefits of British protection and laws
administered by British judges would far more than compensate for the sacrifice by the natives of a national independence which they
are no longer able to maintain, Her Majesty's Government have resolved to authorise you to treat with the aborigines of New Zealand
in the recognition of Her Majesty's sovereign authority over the whole or any part of those Islands which they may be willing to place
under Her Majesty's dominion. I am not aware of the difficulties by which such a treaty may be encountered. The motives by which it
is recommended are, of course, open to suspicion. The natives may probably regard with distrust a proposal which may carry on the
face of it the appearance of humiliation on their side and of a formidable encroachment on ours: and their ignorance even of the
technical terms in which that proposal must be conveyed, may enhance their aversion to an arrangement of which they may be unable
to comprehend the exact meaning or probable results. These, however, are impediments to be gradually overcome by the exercise on
your part of mildness, justice and perfect sincerity in your intercourse with them. You will, I trust, find powerful auxiliaries amongst
the missionaries who have won and deserve their confidence; and amongst the older British residents who have studied their character
and acquired their language. It is almost superfluous to say that, in selecting you for the discharge of this duty, I have been guided by
firm reliance on your uprightness and plain dealing.

You will therefore frankly and unreservedly explain to the natives or their chiefs the reasons which should urge them to acquiesce in
the proposals you will make to them. Especially you will point out to them the dangers to which they may be exposed by the residence
amongst them of settlers amenable to no laws or tribunals of their own and the impossibility of Her Majesty extending to them any
effectual protection unless the Queen be acknowledged as the Sovereign of their country, or at least of those districts within or
adjacent to which Her Majesty's subjects lands or habitations. If it should be necessary to propitiate their consent by presents or other
pecuniary arrangements, you will be authorised to advance at once to a certain extent in meeting such demands, and beyond those

                                                                                                                                        282
limits you will reserve and refer them for the decision of Her Majesty's Government.

It is not, however, to the mere recognition of the sovereign authority of the Queen that your endeavours are to be confined, or your
negotiations directed. It is further necessary that the chiefs should be induced, if possible, to contract with you, as representing Her
Majesty, that henceforward no lands shall be ceded, either gratuitously or otherwise, except to the Crown of Great Britain.
Contemplating the future growth and extension of a British colony in New Zealand, it is an object of the first importance that the
alienation of the unsettled lands within the limits should be conducted from its commencement upon that system of sale of which
experience has proved the wisdom, and the disregard of which has been so fatal to the prosperity of other British settlements. With a
view to those interests it is obviously the same thing whether large tracts of land be acquired by the mere gift of the Government or the
purchases effected on nominal considerations from the aborigines. On either supposition the land revenue must be wasted, the
introduction of emigrants delayed or prevented, and the country parceled out amongst large land owners whose possession must long
remain an unprofitable, or rather pernicious waste. Indeed in a comparison of the two methods of acquiring land gratuitously, that of
grants from the Crown, mischievous as it is, would be the less inconvenient, as such grants must be made with at least some kind of
system, with some degree of responsibility, subject to some conditions, and recorded for general information. But in the case of
purchases from the natives even these securities against abuse must be omitted, and none could be substituted for them. You will
immediately on your arrival announce, by proclamation addressed to all the Queen's subjects in New Zealand that Her Majesty will
not acknowledge as valid any title to land which either has been, or shall hereafter be acquired in that country which is not either
derived from or confirmed by a grant to be made in Her Majesty's name and on Her behalf. You will, however, at the same time take
care to dispel any apprehensions which may be created in the minds of the settlers that it is intended to dispossess the owners of any
property which has been acquired on equitable conditions, and which is not upon a scale which must be prejudicial to the latent
interests of the community. Extensive acquisitions of such lands have undoubtedly been already obtained, and it is probable that
before your arrival a great addition will have been made to them. The embarrassments occasioned by such claims will demand your
earliest and most careful attention.

I shall in the sequel explain the relation in which the proposed colony will stand to the Government of New South Wales. From that
relation I propose to drive the resources necessary for encountering the difficulties I have mentioned. The Governor of that colony
will, with the advice of the Legislative Council, will be instructed to appoint a Legislative Commission to investigate and ascertain
what are the lands held by British subjects under grants from the natives; how far such grants were lawfully acquired and ought to be
respected; and what may have been the price or other valuable consideration given to them. The Commissioners will make their report
to the Governor, and it will then be decided by him how far the claimants, or any of them, may be entitled to confirmatory grants from
the Crown, and on what conditions such confirmations ought to be made.

The propriety of immediately subjecting to a small annual tax all uncleared lands within the British settlements in New Zealand will

                                                                                                                                     283
also engage the attention of the Governor and council of New South Wales. The forfeiture of all lands in respect of which the tax shall
remain for a certain period in arrear would probably before long restore to the demesne of the Crown so much of the waste land as
may be held unprofitably to themselves, and the public by the actual claimants. Having by these methods obviated the dangers of the
acquisition of large tracts of the country by mere land-jobbers, it will be your duty to obtain by fair and equal contracts with the
natives the cession to the Crown of such waste lands as may be progressively required for the occupation of settlers resorting to New
Zealand. All such contracts should be made by yourself, through the intervention of an officer expressly appointed to watch over the
interests of the aborigines as their protector. The re-sale of the first purchases that may be made will provide the funds necessary for
future acquisitions, and beyond the original investment of a comparatively small sum of money, no other resources should be
necessary for this purpose. I thus assume that the price to be paid to the natives by the local Government will bear an exceedingly
small proportion to the price for which the same lands will be re-sold by the Government to the settlers, nor is there any real injustice
in this inequality. To the natives and their chiefs much of the land in the country is of no actual use, and in their hands it possesses
scarcely an exchangeable value. Much of it must long remain useless, even in the hands of the British Government also, but its value
in exchange shall be first created, and then progressively increased by the introduction of capital and of settlers from this country. In
the benefits arising from that increase the natives themselves will gradually participate.

All dealings with the natives for their lands must be conducted on the same principles of sincerity, justice and good faith as must
govern your transactions with them for the recognition of Her Majesty's sovereignty in the Islands. Nor is that all: they 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.

There are yet other duties owing to the aborigines of New Zealand, which may be all comprised in the comprehensive expression of
promoting their civilisation, understanding by that term whatever relates to religious, intellectual and social advancement of mankind.
For their religious instruction liberal provision has already been made by the zeal of the missionaries, and the Missionary Societies in
this kingdom, and it will be at once the most important and the most grateful of your duties to this ignorant race of men to afford the
utmost encouragement, protection and support to their Christian teachers. I acknowledge also the obligation of rendering to the
Missions such pecuniary aid as the local Government may be able to afford, and as their increased labours may reasonably entitle
them to expect. The establishment of schools for the education of the aborigines in the elements of literature will be another object of
your solicitude, and until they can be brought within the pale of civilised life, and trained to the adoption of its habits, they must be
carefully defended in the observance of their own customs, so far as these are compatible with the universal maxims of humanity and
morals. But the savage practices of human sacrifice and cannibalism must be promptly and decisively interdicted; such atrocities,

                                                                                                                                      284
under whatever plea of religion they may take place, are not to be tolerated within any part of the dominions of the British Crown.

It remains to be considered in what manner provision is to be made for carrying these instructions into effect and for the establishment
and exercise of your authority over Her Majesty's subjects who may settle in New Zealand, or who are already there. Numerous
projects for the establishment of a constitution for the proposed colony have at different times been suggested to myself and to my
immediate predecessor in office, and during the last session of Parliament, a Bill for the same purpose was introduced into the House
of Commons at the instance of some persons immediately connected with the emigration then contemplated. The same subject was
carefully examined by a Committee of the House of Lords. But the common result of all enquiries, both in this office and either House
of Parliament, was to show the impracticability of the schemes proposed for adoption, and the extreme difficulty of establishing at
New Zealand any institutions, legislative, judicial or fiscal without some more effective control than could be found amongst the
settlers themselves in the infancy of the settlement. It has therefore been resolved to place whatever territories may be acquired in the
sovereignty by the Queen in New Zealand in the relation of dependency to the Government of New South Wales. I am, of course, fully
aware of the objections which may be reasonably urged against this measure, but after the most ample investigation I am convinced
that for the present there is no other practicable course which would not be opposed by difficulties still more considerable, although I
trust that the time is not distant when it may be proper to establish in New Zealand itself a local legislative authority.

In New South Wales there is a Colonial Government possessing comparatively long experience, sustained by a large revenue, and
constituted in such a manner as is best adapted to enable the legislative and executive authorities to act with promptitude and decision.
It presents the opportunity of bringing the internal economy of the proposed new colony under the constant revision of a power
sufficiently near to obtain early and accurate intelligence and sufficiently remote to be removed from the influence of the passions and
prejudices by which the first colonists must in the commencement of their enterprise be agitated. It is impossible to confide to an
indiscriminate body of persons who have voluntarily settled themselves in the immediate vicinity of numerous population of New
Zealand, those large and irresponsible powers which belong to the representative system of Colonial Government. Nor is that system
adapted to a colony struggling with the first difficulties of their new situation. Whatever may be the ultimate form of Government to
which the British settlers in New Zealand are to be subject, it is essential to their own welfare, not less than that of the aborigines, that
they should at first be placed under a rule which is at once effective and a considerable degree external. The proposed connection with
New South Wales will not, however, involve the extension to New Zealand of the character of a penal settlement. Every motive
concurs in forbidding this, and it is to be understood as a fundamental principle of the new colony that no convict is ever to be sent
thither to undergo his punishment.

The accompanying copy of my correspondence with the law Officers will be explained to you on the grounds of law on which it is to
be concluded that by the annexation of New Zealand to New South Wales, the powers vested by Parliament in the Governor and
Legislative Council of the older settlement might be exercised over the inhabitants of the new colony. The accompanying Commission

                                                                                                                                         285
under the Great Seal will give effect to this arrangement, and the warrant that I enclose under Her Majesty's sign manual, will
constitute you Lieutenant-Governor of that part of the New South Wales Colony which has thus been extended over the New Zealand
Islands. These instructions you will deliver to Sir George Gipps, who on your proceeding to New Zealand will place them in your
hands to be published there. You will then return them to him to be deposited amongst the archives of the New South Wales
Government.

In the event of your death or absence, the officer administrating the Government of New South Wales, will, provisionally, and until
Her Majesty's pleasure can be known, appoint a Lieutenant-Governor in your place, under an instrument under the public seal of the
Government.

It is not for the present proposed to appoint any subordinate officers for your assistance. That such appointments will be indispensable
is not, indeed, to be doubted. But I am unwilling at first to advance beyond the strict limits of the necessity which alone induces the
Ministers of the Crown to interfere at all on this subject. You will confer with Sir George Gipps as to the number and nature of the
official appointments which would be made at the commencement of the undertaking and as to the proper rate of their emoluments.
These must be fixed with the most anxious regard for frugality and the expenditure of the public resources. The selection of the
individuals by whom such offices are to be borne must be made by yourself from the colonists either of New South Wales or New
Zealand, but upon the full and distinct understanding that their tenure of office, and even the existence of the offices which they are to
hold must be provisional and dependant upon the future pleasure of the Crown. Amongst the offices thus to be created, the most
evidently indispensable are those of a Judge, a Public Prosecutor, a Protector of the Aborigines, a Colonial Secretary, a Treasurer, a
Surveyor General of Lands, and a Superintendent of Police. Of these the Judge alone will require the enactment of a law to create and
define his functions. The Act now pending in Parliament, for the revival, with amendments, of the New South Wales ACT, will, if
passed into law, enable the Governor and Legislative Council to make all necessary provision for the establishment in New Zealand of
a Court of Justice and a judicial system separate from and independent of the existing Supreme Court. The other functionaries I have
mentioned can be appointed by the Governor in the unaided exercise of the delegated prerogative of the Crown Whatever laws may be
required for the Government of the new colony will be enacted by the Governor and Legislative Council. It will be his duty to bring
under their notice, such recommendations as you may see cause to convey to him on subjects of this nature. The absolute necessity of
the revenue being raised to defray the expenses of the Government of the proposed settlement in New Zealand has not, of course,
escaped my careful attention. Having consulted the Lords of the Treasury on this subject, I have arranged with their Lordships that
until the sources of such revenues shall have been set in action, you should be authorised to draw on the Government of New South
Wales for your unavoidable expenditure. Separate accounts, however, will be kept of the public revenue of New Zealand and the
application of it, and whatever debt may be contracted to New South Wales, must be replaced by the earliest possible opportunity.
Duties of import on tobacco, spirits, wine and sugar will probably supersede the necessity of any other taxation, and such duties except
on spirits, will probably be of very moderate amount.

                                                                                                                                      286
The system at present established in New South Wales regarding land will be applied to all waste lands which may be acquired by the
Crown in New Zealand.

Separate accounts must be kept of the Land revenue, subject to the necessary deductions for the expense of surveys and management,
and for the improvement by roads and otherwise of the unsold territory, and subject to any deductions which may be required to meet
the indispensable exigencies of the local Government. The surplus of the revenue will be applicable, as in New South Wales, to the
charge of removing emigrants from this kingdom to the new colony.

The system established in New South Wales to provide for the religious instruction of the inhabitants has so fully justified the policy
by which it was dictated that I could suggest no better means of providing for this all-important object in New Zealand. It is, however,
gratifying to know that the spiritual wants of the settlers will, in the commencement of the undertaking, be readily and amply provided
for by the missionaries of the established Church of England, and the other Christian communions, who have been so long settled on
those Islands. It will not be difficult to secure for the European inhabitants some portion of that time and attention which the
missionaries have hitherto devoted exclusively to the aborigines.

I enclose, for your information and guidance, copies of a correspondence between this department and the Treasury, referring you to
Sir George Gipps for such additional instructions as may enable you to give full affect to the view of Her Majesty's Government on
the subject of finance. You will observe that the general principle is that of maintaining in the proposed colony a system of revenue,
expenditure, and account entirely separate from that of New South Wales, though corresponding with it as far as that correspondence
can be maintained.

After briefly describing the rules to be observed by Captain Hobson in conducting his correspondence with his immediate superior,
Governor Gipps, and the Colonial Office, Lord Normanby concluded his instructions as follows:

I have thus attempted to touch upon all the topics on which it seems to me necessary to address you on your departure from this
country. Many questions have been unavoidably passed over in silence, and many others have been adverted to in a brief and cursory
manner, because I am fully impressed with the conviction that in such an undertaking as that in which you are about to engage much
must be left to your own discretion and many questions must occur which no foresight could anticipate or properly resolve
beforehand. Reposing the utmost confidence in your judgement, experience and zeal for Her Majesty's service and aware of how
powerful a coadjutor and how able a guide you will have in Sir George Gipps, I willing leave for consultation between you many
subjects on which I feel my own incompetency at this distance from the scene of action to form an opinion.



                                                                                                                                    287
(Text taken from The Treaty of Waitangi, by T.L. Buick, pp 70-79).




                                                                     288

				
DOCUMENT INFO