In the same sorry vein as Dr. Phil Parkinson, Dr Donald Loveridge has not researched the Littlewood treaty document for the Treaty Information Unit as he was asked. He has, instead, only attempted to discredit our research into this document with trivia, nonsense, red herrings and half-truths. Taking an even less informed approach than Parkinson's, "Preserved In The Archives Of The Colony", Loveridge draws ridiculous and premature conclusions, based upon undocumented suppositions and very superficial research. One statement by Loveridge is along the lines of: "Hobson could not have been at James Clendon's house on the 4th as he was not there when Rev Richard Taylor arrived for tea at 4-00pm". We know that by 4-00pm, Governor Hobson had already been rowed across the bay and was presenting the final English draft to Rev. Henry Williams and his son to translate into Te Tiriti O Waitangi. While we have no idea when Hobson finished the final draft and left Clendon's residence, we do know it would take at least an hour to organise a boat and be rowed across the bay to the C.M.S. Mission, departing long before Taylor arrived at Clendon's residence for tea at 4-00pm. If Dr Loveridge had spent more time doing his own thorough research, rather than seeking to discredit ours, he would have found, amongst other things, the Bay of Islands did not have "Fast Taxi Cabs" in 1840.

We also know Hobson was on shore at Kororareka to consider renting a cottage from James Busby on the afternoons of the 2nd & 3rd of February 1840. He finally tied down the deal with Busby on the 4th, after meeting with Busby at the Kororareka cottage to discuss the treaty draft Busby brought over and "submitted" to Hobson during the evening of the 3rd. Hobson remained ashore and in Busby's presence for most of the 4th of February, until the treaty final draft in English was completed. As Hobson had travelled half way around the world with instructions to secure a treaty with the chiefs, the meeting for which was scheduled for the 5th of February, his main priority for going ashore would not have been to look at Busby's two-room cottage, but to conclude writing the final English draft for the Treaty. To accomplish this very urgent work he needed to distance himself from Captain Nias's (H.M.S. Herald) argumentative and obstructive interference, which had caused Hobson to become very ill and which now jeopardised the whole treaty programme. All the evidence, based upon a paper trail that can be followed to a logical conclusion, points to this final drafting session taking place at James Clendon's residence. See, "The Littlewood Treaty - The final English Text Of The Treaty Of Waitangi Found", by Martin Doutré.

To research the sequence of events that prove, beyond reasonable doubt, the authenticity of the Littlewood treaty document as the final English draft of the Treaty of Waitangi, we must find all the evidence possible, then put it into chronological order for the full, story to emerge. History, as it has already happened, must have a beginning, a middle and an end. In the Littlewood document's case we had a beginning (It's common knowledge that there was a final draft that went missing about February 1840) and we had an end (The final draft document was found again by John Littlewood and his sister Beryl in 1989). Most of the middle part was missing, which allowed the Government to be manipulated into accepting the premature and incorrect "cop-out" conclusion, in 1992, that the Littlewood treaty document, "Was just another translation of the Maori version by an unknown author".

Since this time, Martin Doutré and I have undertaken extensive research and found many documents and evidence never before located or considered pertinent to the case, which now restores an excellent understanding of the long-missing middle part of the story. This new documented evidence shows, beyond reasonable doubt, that the Littlewood Treaty document is, in fact, the final English draft of the Treaty of Waitangi and the same piece of paper that went missing soon after it was translated into Te Tiriti O Waitangi. The full story, now consisting of a beginning, a middle and an end can be found in Martin Doutré's recently published book, "The Littlewood Treaty - The final English Text Of The Treaty Of Waitangi Found"

It is very easy for Dr Phil Parkinson and Dr Donald Loveridge to take one small part of this story/research and make some ridiculous statements and assumptions, when they have not taken into account the whole event or all the evidence available. This is called "selective research" and is a manipulative practice that has been used by our Government and its chosen "social- historians" or politically aligned researchers, to distort our history for many, many years now and tip the balance in favour of a ever-growing and malignant "grievance industry". History must flow as a sequence of feasible, unfolding events, unlike the illogical, disjointed and unrealistic propaganda Dr Parkinson, Loveridge, Orange and most other Government employed historians try to put across masked as truth, but which is only politically-expedient history. It is a disgrace that our Government and its treaty-consultants, who are paid by the taxpayer, continuously find ways to side-step the truth with this "selective research", the sole purpose of which is to rob New Zealanders of their true rights. Regardless of the emerging evidence, the results are always fudged and distorted to find in favour of the parasitic grievance industry, which has all but destroyed our egalitarian Treaty of Waitangi and left most New Zealanders disenfranchised, destitute of national wealth and without hope for the future of their children.

Most New Zealanders don't realise that this is a very high stakes game. This is not simple bantering between historians and a trivial academic exercise.

NEW ZEALANDERS... PLEASE BE AWARE...

THE LITTLEWOOD TREATY DOCUMENT SCARES THE HELL OUT OF THE GRIEVANCE-INDUSTRY AND THEY WILL DO ALL IN THEIR POWER TO DISCREDIT, HOBBLE OR DESTROY IT & RENDER IT INEFFECTIVE. It is the "final English draft" and it proves that "TREATY REVISIONISM" of the past 30-years has been outright and deliberate FRAUD. Just as the Maori version guarantees, all New Zealanders are absolutely EQUAL under the Treaty of Waitangi, so does the "final English draft" state exactly the same thing. What the REAL documents say FLIES IN THE FACE of what the grievance industry tries to promote as the treaty wording, which is only a "COMPOSITE" text based on early rough notes, where the rights of the British or settlers had not yet been included.

When Dr Parkinson could not twist the facts enough to discredit the Littlewood treaty document as the final draft, Government then engaged Dr Loveridge to provide "selective research" in a desperate attempt to discredit the very threatening "Littlewood" development. This was the same tactical approach used by Government when they asked for a report from the Surveyor General into the Te Roroa claim. When he failed to provide the kind of report and conclusions that the "powers-that-be" so-dearly wanted, he quickly disappeared and was replaced by a "ring-in" Surveyor General, who wrote a report more to the grievance-industry's liking. This is the utterly corrupt, "business as usual" approach, based on very "selective research" and undocumented assumptions, which we have come to expect of successive grievance-industry controlled governments, engaged in the nefarious trade-away and erosion of our Treaty-related, legal rights to land deeds and property titles. Even titles where every step of the transaction was fully documented and well understood by all parties and which have endured for over 100-years, are now under threat because of deliberately blurred history.

It is interesting to note that Dr Claudia Orange, who did most of the research into the Littlewood document in 1992, is now sitting on the fence and saying nothing. Her only comment on the 2nd March 2004 was, "Ross, I have not had time nor do I at present to research this and I would not venture to comment until I have". In 1992, Dr Orange told the people of New Zealand, "It was just another translation of the Maori version by an unknown author".

You were wrong about the author, Claudia, in 1992! Don't you think you have an obligation to do that research and tell the people the truth about the Littlewood treaty document? There is far more evidence now than when you made your premature and incorrect announcement in 1992. You even have one of Martin Doutré's books, with all the evidence and where to find the document originals.

Below, Martin Doutré writes a response to Dr. Loveridge's poorly researched and very incomplete report. He fills in the gaps where Dr Donald Loveridge's omits comment and, seemingly, dares not go. This is the essential information the people of New Zealand need in order to gain a well-rounded understanding of historical events pertinent to the case. Loveridge's mission was, quite obviously, to discredit the Littlewood treaty document as the final English draft, all done at the taxpayers' expense. Alongside Martin's report, Dr Loveridge, as with Dr Parkinson before him, has failed miserably to get his strange interpretation of historical events to stick

For Martin Doutré's rebuttal of Dr Donald Loveridge's report for the Treaty Information Unit, see below.

Ross Baker.

Researcher, One New Zealand Foundation Inc.

12/07/06

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MARTIN DOUTRE'S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE TO DR. DONALD LOVERIDGE'S ARTICLE: The “Littlewood Treaty”: An Appraisal of Texts and Interpretations (Dated 1 May 2006).

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

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

There is only one Treaty of Waitangi.

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

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

On the 17th of February 1840 the C.M.S. Mission press produced 200 copies of the Maori language treaty, as a paid consignment ordered by Hobson. There was no production of an official English treaty text, as there wasn't one. Subsequently, all of the large, handwritten copies of the Treaty of Waitangi, commissioned and produced by the government, then officially sent to the treaty signing assemblies around New Zealand, were in the Maori language and there were no departures from this strict practice.

Treaty Consultant, Brian Easton, noted:

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

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

Article II states:

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

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

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

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

The categories of English Treaty texts:

1. Drafts: There are sixteen pages of rough notes preceding the Maori translation, produced over several days, conceivably from about the 30th of January and dated in Busby's notation to have terminated on the 3rd of February 1840. These developed from very raw preamble concepts and were gradually refined until the drafters were ready to produce the final English draft text on the 4th of February 1840. In the National Archives at Wellington, twelve pages of these early rough notes are on display in the Constitution Room. A further four pages, representing Busby's first attempt, are in the collection of the Auckland Institute and Museum. None of these sixteen pages, singularly or in unison, can qualify as a completed final draft, sufficient for the legislators to hand over for translation into the Maori language.
   
   
2. Final Draft: There is only one known document that qualifies, in every respect, as the final draft. It bears the date of the 4th of February 1840, the same day that Reverend Henry Williams was handed the final draft by Hobson for translation, overnight, into the Maori language. The document is written in ink upon W. Tucker 1833 watermarked paper. It is, as historically required, positively in the handwriting of British Resident, James Busby. It translates perfectly to the Maori Te Tiriti O Waitangi, with only some minor added emphasis being directed more-so to the Maori people in, primarily, Article III. This document was found amongst the papers of the Littlewood deceased estate of Pukekohe, South Auckland in 1989. Treaty historians seem to be in universal agreement that the final English draft went missing sometime in February 1840.
   (A) Dr. Loveridge in his report states: Ms. Ross noted that the English text used by Henry Williams as the starting-point for the creation of the Maori text “Unfortunately ... does not appear to have survived”, and Dr. Orange could only agree that no trace of “the final English draft” could be found (The Treaty of Waitangi (1987) pp. 36-37; Ruth M. Ross, “Te Tiriti o Waitangi: Texts and Translations” (New Zealand Journal of History 6#2, Oct. 1972, pp. 129-157), particularly pp. 132-136.
   (B) Dr. Claudia Orange wrote: ‘The original draft in English, on which Henry Williams based this Maori translation, has not been found. His original translation, presented to the Waitangi meeting of 5 February, has also disappeared’. Red Emphasis Added.
   
   
3. Back-translations: There were a large number of English versions produced after the 6th of February 1840, by back-translating the Maori text. As Easton observes, this indicates a total lack of a treaty text considered "official" in the English language. In 1869 the government requested that a back-translation of the Maori text be formally supplied. It was produced, under official request, by Mr. T.E. Young of the Native Department.
   
   
4. Formal Royal-Style copies: In keeping with formalities contemporary to the 1840's, memorial documents, destined to be laid beneath the gaze of royalty, the House of Lords or Parliament, etc., were often embellished in beautiful or flowery language. Hobson's secretary, James Stuart Freeman, who had been educated at prestigious Eton Public School and Oxford University, England, made up a series of variable, composite, Royal-Style treaty versions for despatch overseas, primarily to Governor Sir George Gipps in Australia or Lord Normanby of the Colonial Office in England. To create these several Formal Royal Style versions, Freeman consulted the rough draft notes, which still contained some very pretentious language, later superseded and discarded in the final English draft. This source of text is beyond dispute. We can identify the point of origin for each paragraph, found within the Royal Style variations, amidst the twelve pages of rough draft notes presently held by Archives New Zealand. Historian Ruth Ross, therefore, correctly defined this category of treaty versions for despatch as "composite" versions. No additional text created after the 3rd of February 1840, other than some linking words added in by Freeman to bind concepts together, can be found in these seven known Formal Royal Style composites. These are a special category, the function of which is similar to poetry. Each one of these versions created by Freeman for overseas despatch was different in wording to a larger or lesser degree.

• The term Formal Royal Style treaty was, to my knowledge, first coined by Dr. Phil Parkinson who stated: ‘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). Red emphasis added.
  
  
• A fairly good and easily accessible example of this traditional English preoccupation with highfalutin, sucrose-dripping salutation in memorial documents destined for royalty, aristocracy or high positions and posts within the realm, can be found in the introduction to the King James version of the Bible, wherein it reads:

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

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

• Historian Ruth Ross makes comparisons between five of these composite versions, then concludes: ‘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’ (See: Te Tiriti o Waitangi: Texts and Translations, New Zealand Journal of History, Oct. 1972)
  
  
• Despite this very obvious truth, our mainstream treaty historians would, in contradictory and deceptive fashion, have us believe that one of these Formal Royal Style versions was somehow used by Reverend Henry Williams to translate Te Tiriti O Waitangi. While leaving the public with this patently false impression, historians like Claudia Orange still, confusingly, admit that the final draft of the 4th of February 1840 was "lost".
  
  
• Having worked, briefly, many years ago as a translator of French historical documents into English, I support Ruth Ross in her above assessment. As one who is reasonably well acquainted with the process of translation work, I can say with conviction that Reverend Henry Williams and his son, Edward Marsh Williams, did not use what is now considered to be the "official" English text for their translation of Te Tiriti O Waitangi. There are far too many translatable words in the so-called "official" English text, for which Maori language equivalents existed. A whole raft of these words did not end up in the Maori text... words like Europe, United Kingdom, Ireland, Australia, Forests, Fisheries, favour, extension, etc. At the same time, there were words like Preemption that were far too difficult to translate verbatim and, although extant within the so-called "official" English, are conspicuous by their absence in the Maori. Then there were several phrases that could have been accommodated, but weren't... like: "assembled in congress at Victoria in Waitangi" or "may be supposed to exercise or to possess" or "absolutely and without reservation" or "disposed to alienate", etc., which, certainly, don't appear anywhere in the Maori text in any recognisable form. Moreover, the sentence structure and order in which concepts appear between the two texts is widely diverse and disjointed. As we now compare the so-called "official" English against the Maori Tiriti, we must deduce that the translator would have been in very serious breach of the confidence and trust placed in him by employers requiring a literal translation. Quite obviously, the Williams' father and son team worked from an altogether different final English draft than the grievance-industry nominated "official" English text, ram-rodded forcibly into all of our present legislation. The "true & actual" text that the translators worked from had to be, without any question, worded the same or very near to the same, as the "Littlewood Treaty" document...ask any experienced translator and they'll tell you the same thing... there's no way in Hades that the Williams' father and son team worked from a "Formal Royal Style" English composite and came up with Te Tiriti O Waitangi text...an absolute impossibility and an absurd hypothesis for so-called learned scholars to relentlessly cleave to or unashamedly promote and foist upon an unsuspecting and trusting public.

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

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

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

THE MISSION STATEMENT AND CONCLUSIONS OF DR. DONALD LOVERIDGE

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

Dr, Loveridge's article is, primarily, a refutation of points raised in my book, The Littlewood Treaty, The True English Text of the Treaty of Waitangi Found. In his study he attempts to demolish some of my evidence while glossing over or completely ignoring other compelling facts presented. He then, all-too-quickly relegates the Littlewood document to the lowly status of a "back-translation". The limited scope of Dr. Loveridge's study, however, coupled with his lack of documented evidence, and heavy reliance on "suppositions" to prove historical points, is insufficient to lead to his final conclusion. Let us review, in more depth, the arguments he raises in support of his contention that the Littlewood Treaty document is, at best, an mis-dated back-translation or, at worst, an inept forgery:

(1) Was there ever any any credence to Dr. Loveridge's suggestion that the Littlewood Treaty document could be a forgery?

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

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

Indeed, speculation that Hobson's "lost" final English draft of the treaty might have been found had been published in major national newspapers as early as the 11th & 12th of September 1992 and was the subject of TV1 & TV3 news clips at about the same time. Even Ian Wards, who had formerly held the post of Chief Historian for Internal Affairs, stated that there was, 'some thought that it could be the first draft or a copy of it taken by Governor William Hobson to the missionary Henry Williams on February 4, 1840 for translation'. The article goes on to mention the Minister of Internal Affairs: 'Mr. Lee, who expressed his department's irritation that news of the find had been made public, said there was a mystery over who had written the document. There are a number of questions yet to be answered before Archives will be able to establish the document's significance' (See: Draft Puzzles Experts, NZ Herald, Sept. 11, 1992, pg. 2, Section 1). Red emphasis added.

The public of New Zealand had an absolute right to very well researched, clinically scientific answers about this document. If ever there was a time when our historians and forensic experts needed to combine their talents and concentrate their focus in a singular quest for the truth, it was now. The newly found Littlewood Treaty document had the potential to redefine what the treaty truly meant, after a decade of radical revision and reinterpretations, foisted upon New Zealanders under the Lange and Palmer governments especially.

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

The people of New Zealand were to be disappointed in their very reasonable expectation of answers to these all important questions, as the answers never came. In the interim period of about a week, between the national media coverage about the Littlewood Treaty document, and the 21st of the month, Dr. Donald Loveridge did a superficial assessment ('marginal involvement'), which in no wise answered or even adequately addressed the outstanding questions. In his letter to the Crown Counsel of about seven hundred words content, including headings, introduction and footnotes, he dismissed the document as either a latter translation of the Maori text bearing a mistaken date, or an outright forgery by an inept individual.

These many years later, because of what could well have been a security blunder leading to a "leak" within Archives New Zealand, we now know that the author of the document was James Busby. We also know, through private, independent research undertaken by a colleague and myself, that the W. Tucker 1833 paper upon which the text is written, belonged to James Reddy Clendon, U.S. Consul at the Bay of Islands and close friend of the British Resident, James Busby. Clendon had supported Busby in his writing of the 1835 Declaration of Independence for the Confederation of United Chiefs and had signed the same. Dr. James Rutherford states:

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

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

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

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

Clendon was a meticulous record keeper, as his surviving business registers attest, who also had a wonderful command of language and the ability to write very eloquently. He most assuredly spoke Maori very well and, either reading Maori or writing in that language was a relatively easy extension to speaking it. The advantage with the Maori language is that it is spelt exactly as it sounds, unlike English with all of its variations, as with "ough"... bough, enough, ought, cough, etc. As a fluent speaker of Maori, Clendon would have encountered no difficulty in either reading or writing the language.

Clendon also signed the Treaty of Waitangi in behalf of his friend, chief Pomaré II on the 17th of February, 1840. It is, seemingly, obligatory that Clendon would have first met Captain William Hobson in 1837. Inasmuch as Hobson was sent out from Australia as Captain of H.M.S. Rattlesnake, specifically at Busby's request, to help quell the hostilities arising between Pomaré II and Titore, in which the settlers were threatened, he would, assuredly, have worked closely with Clendon, along with Reverends Henry Williams and Samuel Marsden. Pomaré II's PA sat adjacent to Clendon's farmlet and the land had been purchased from the chief. In 1837 Hobson visited the chief in an attempt to diffuse the growing hostility and bring about peace (See Dictionary of New Zealand Biography).

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

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

• The W. Tucker 1833 paper is very rare in New Zealand and, according to Kathryn Patterson, Head Archivist, in a letter she wrote to John Littlewood dated the 12th of October 1992, the marque had never been noted to exist within local historical documents, until encountered on the Littlewood Treaty document. She stated that an intensive search at Archives turned up only three sheets bearing this manufacturer's watermark, but for years other than 1833. One of these pages dated to 1836 and two dated to 1837. On the 17th of May 2004, during a close scrutiny of faint watermark images occurring within microfilm copies of Clendon's U.S. despatches, we discovered that virtually every despatch Clendon sent to the United States from January 1840 until January 1841, contained some W. Tucker 1833 paper ( See: Auckland Institute and Museum Library: Micro # 51. Despatches from the U.S. Consul to the Bay of Islands and Auckland, 1839-1906: Roll 1, May 27, 1839 - Nov. 30, 1846, also available at the University of Auckland Library).
  
  
• In 2000, Dr. Phil Parkinson positively identified the author of the Littlewood Treaty document to be James Busby and this has been yet again confirmed in Parkinson's recent book ‘Preserved in the Archives of the Colony’: The English Drafts of the Treaty of Waitangi (New Zealand Association for Comparative Law/ Revue Juridique Polynesienne, Cahier Special Monograph, 2006).
  
  
• The pedigree of the Littlewood document is impeccable, with a clear route back to Henry Littlewood, Clendon's 1856 solicitor. The pedigree can be further extended back to Hobson, due to an official request from Clendon, in his capacity as U.S. Consul, when he formally requested that the definitive or final wording of the treaty in both English and Maori be supplied. Clendon's receipt to the Colonial Secretary, Willoughby Shortland, tells us that his request was fulfilled before the 18th of March 1840, the date Clendon placed on his return letter (See: Alexander Turnbull Library qMS-1603).
  
  
• Due to the manner in which Commodore Charles Wilkes copied this English treaty version on the 3rd of April 1840, after he had made a request to have the official English and Maori versions supplied for his despatch number 64, we know, conclusively, that he worked from the Littlewood Treaty document. Wilkes, or his secretary, made a point of copying Busby's spelling mistakes or crossed-out errors and corrections, which points definitively to the Littlewood Treaty being, literally, in Wilkes' possession. It, therefore, existed as of the 3rd of April 1840 and there is not one compelling piece of evidence to show that it did not exist as of the 4th of February 1840, as per the date recorded, in Busby's hand, at the end of the document (See: Papers of Charles Wilkes 1837 - 1847, U.S.S. Vincennes Letter Book, copy of despatch 64, Microfilm 1262, University of Auckland Library, pp. 163 - 164, originals held at the Kansas Historical Society, Topeka Kansas, U.S.A.).
  
  
• In Dr. Loveridges September 1992 letter to the Executive Crown Counsel, he stated: 'If someone was trying to create a document which would pass for the lost Williams draft of February 4th (or any other English draft predating the Waitangi signing), they did a singular inept job of it.' In light of the outstanding attributes of the Littlewood document, Dr. Donald Loveridge's very strong inference that the work was the product of an inept forger, is both historically irresponsible and inaccurate in the extreme. The moment the handwriting was recognised to be that of British Resident, James Busby, the whole flimsy and baseless forgery hypothesis evaporated.
  
  
• The document, preserved by the Littlewood family for over 136-years, deserved a far deeper and more thorough assessment than this. Before proffering any such superficial, dismissive commentary, Dr. Loveridge had a responsibility to identify both the author and the source of the paper stock. In retrospect, these preliminary requirements represented relatively simple tasks to resolve. Busby had said he was the author of the final English draft and there was really only a relatively compact group of central drafting individuals or advisors, numbering perhaps a half dozen who, plausibly, could have supplied the paper. Again, the Littlewood document fulfils these stringent qualifying requirements, which Dr. Loveridge neglected to research before making the outlandish inference of 'singularly-inept' forgery. Thankfully, these fourteen years later since his report of September 21st 1992, he seems to have abandoned this preposterous hypothesis, but mischievously leaves the door slightly ajar for anyone who wishes to keep the proposition alive..

Conclusion: The Littlewood Treaty document, rediscovered by the Littlewood family in 1989 at Pukekohe, South Auckland, can be positively shown to have existed as of the 3rd of April 1840. It was supplied, on that date, by James Reddy Clendon, U.S. Consul, to Commodore Charles Wilkes, United States Antarctic Expeditionary Squadron, for transcription. Closely similar wording, limited more-so to some capitalisation, spelling and punctuation differences, was despatched to the United States Secretary of State by James Clendon on the 20th of February 1840 in despatch No. 6. This shows us that the version existed by that date. Moreover, there has never been so much as one documented piece of evidence to support the contention that the Littlewood Treaty documented is mis-dated. In lieu of any such proof, we must accept that the date, the 4th of February 1840, is correct and represents what James Busby intended to write.

Compelling paper-trail evidence would lend credence to the fact that the document, which in recent years has been dubbed the "Littlewood Treaty" by our historians, was the same English language treaty document supplied to James Reddy Clendon by the Hobson government, in fulfilment of an official consular request, on or about the 13th of March 1840. We know that Surveyor General, Felton Mathew, in company with James Stuart Freeman, Hobson's private secretary, visited Clendon on the 11th of March 1840, five days after H.M.S Herald arrived back at the bay with a paralysed Hobson on board. Something, quite apart from discussions about purchase of Clendon's Okiato estate by the government, compelled Felton Mathew to return to Clendon on the 13th of March 1840, with whom he had "some business" to conduct. In this instance he doesn't appear to have done any further exploratory work on the property, as he and Freeman had done two days before, but left there to go and visit the American Schooner, Flying Fish to "chat" with the Captain and Lieutenant, returning to the Colonial Secretary's cottage at Kororareka at dusk.

It's significant that Clendon had officially requested treaty documentation from the Colonial Secretary, Willoughby Shortland, who had remained at the Bay while other members of Hobson's staff and including Reverend Henry Williams, had been away to the Thames between February 21st and March 6th aboard H.M.S. Herald. When the Herald left for Australia of the 12th both Felton Mathew and James Stuart Freeman moved in to live with Shortland at the two-room cottage at Kororareka, It's plausible to assume that in the interim day since Mathew's last visit to Clendon, Shortland would have taken out of records the final draft that Hobson had read at Waitangi and carried with him to the other venues, including the Thames. Reverend Henry Williams would, most assuredly, have assembled with the others to wish the Herald bon voyage on the 12th and Williams could well have made Clendon's requested Maori copy available on that day for delivery on the morrow.

Although the "official" English text would ultimately be sent in Wilkes' despatch No. 64 a little over two weeks later, it makes sense to assume that Clendon, at that moment, intended to send it with The Flying Fish, one of the ships of Commodore Wilkes' scattered and battered squadron, fresh from exploring the "icy land" of Antarctica. Clendon had no idea that Commodore Charles Wilkes', aboard the U.S.S. Vincennes, would sail into the bay on the 29th of the month to find his lost ships.

Felton Mathew had also been obliged to go to see Reverend Henry Williams at Paihia on the 10th of March 1840, 'for the purpose of transacting a little business', after which he returned to the Herald in the dark. Felton Mathew appears to have been the main "gofor" during this chaotic time for the government, with Hobson paralysed, and Shortland having a "falling out" with Cooper. The main point is: There is clearly recorded interaction between Felton Mathew, Reverend Henry Williams, James Stuart Freeman, Willoughby Shortland and James Reddy Clendon at that moment in time in the second week of March 1840 when James Reddy Clendon had his request to the government fulfilled and satisfied.

In his despatch No. 6, sent on the 20th of February 1840, U.S. Consul Clendon had promised the U.S. Secretary of State, John Forsyth, that 'when Captain Hobson returns from the Southward', Clendon would 'apply officially' for the correct English and Maori texts of the treaty to be supplied 'for the purpose of sending it to the Government of the United States'. We know that Clendon received what he had officially requested before the 18th of March 1840, as that's when he dated his receipt letter. Circumstantial evidence would suggest that on the 13th of March 1840, Felton Mathew, a senior member of Hobson's staff, gave Clendon both the "final English draft" (the Littlewood Treaty) and a "True Copy" of the Maori Treaty, hand-written for the American government's consular representative by Reverend Henry Williams, the British colonial government's designated translator. This pristine Maori language document is officially signed off by James Stuart Freeman, in behalf of the government and still survives amidst the Clendon House Papers at Special Collections, Auckland Public Library.

On the 4th of February 1840, James Busby was acting as secretary in the final English language drafting of the treaty. He said this himself in July 1861. The only plausible conclusion is that the final English draft (the Littlewood Treaty), dated the 4th of February 1840, was also, literally and physically given to Clendon on or about the 13th of March by Felton Mathew to complete the "requested" set of both official Maori and English texts (See: The Unpublished Letters of Felton Mathew to Sarah Mathew, Special Collections, Auckland Public Library).

2. Was the date written on the Littlewood document, the 4th of February 1840, the result of a 'copying error' by James Busby?

It is somewhat refreshing to see that Dr. Loveridge observes how Dr. Claudia Orange, 'was not entirely satisfied with my proposition that the “4th Feb. 1840” date on the Littlewood document was likely to have been the result of a copying error...' It would seem that Dr. Loveridge was the instigator of this dismal concept, which rose to overwhelm and subdue any positive effect the Littlewood document could have had in rectifying the worsening social situation in New Zealand, borne out of deliberate treaty misinterpretations. Activists had transformed our benign treaty into a cruel club, to bludgeon us into submission, while our aiding and abetting, "social historians" stood back and let it happen. Red emphasis added.

Revisionism, centred on the treaty and its nouveau interpretations, was seriously dividing the country in 1992 and leading towards an apartheid state. This was due, primarily, to the fact that one of James Stuart Freeman's Royal Style English versions had been deceitfully elevated to the status of the legislative treaty text, even supplanting and eclipsing Te tiriti O Waitangi. This English Royal Style version was preferred by social engineers because, in the early rough notes from which this composite treaty had been derived, Busby had forgotten to mention the "settlers" when "treaty rights" were being handed out. Activists and opportunists had seized upon this serious omission in the early rough notes and elevated that defective, superseded English version to pre-eminence, in order to hold the country to ransom. In certain quarters the rediscovery of Hobson's final English draft constituted a most unwelcome find and "spanner in the works". Mechanisms were, thereafter, put in place to effectively hobble the Littlewood document's effectiveness, the foremost ploy of which was to throw doubt on the authenticity of the date at the end of the written text... the 4th of February 1840 or to withhold knowledge of the true author.

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

As stated, James Busby is positively and without dispute the author of the Littlewood Treaty document. He's also the undisputed individual who penned the final English draft of the Treaty of Waitangi on the 4th of February, 1840. For over 150-years before the Littlewood document turned up, we had been looking for a piece of paper with the following attributes:

• It had to say exactly what Te Tiriti O Waitangi said and be set out in the same way. Sentences and words had to mirror each other in perfect reflection. There had to be approximately the same "word weight" per sentence. The English text found had to look and sound, convincingly, like the mother document to Te Tiriti O Waitangi. That is: It had to have a Preamble, three Articles, Hobson's name and title, an affirmation section for the signatory chiefs and the final date. That the Littlewood document qualifies admirably in complying to this perfect layout, is beyond question.
  
  
• It had to be on paper that preceded the signing of the treaty in 1840 and that paper had to be identifiable as stock in use at the Bay of Islands in February 1840. If the paper was from an orphan stock, then that would cast doubt upon the authenticity of the document. Clendon's W. Tucker 1833 stock fulfils these necessary criteria admirably.
  
  
• The paper had to have a pedigree traceable back to one of the founding fathers who drafted the treaty and, ultimately to Busby and Hobson. Its pedigree is impeccable and fully traceable to Clendon, Busby and, in consideration of Clendon's "official" request, to Hobson himself.
  
  
• The author of the hand-written text had to be James Busby, British Resident and that attribute of the Littlewood document is also beyond dispute.
  
  
• It had to bear the date, the 4th of February 1840, which it clearly does.

One would have to scratch one's heads in bewilderment...if this document doesn't satisfy our mainstream historians as the elusive and long sought after final English draft, under all of the clinically stringent, qualifying criteria, then what in tarnation ever would or could satisfy them? In view of the weight of evidence supporting the document's authenticity as the final draft, one would have to conclude that it is, simply, not considered politically convenient or expedient to recognise it for what it truly is, and that factor, undoubtedly, constitutes the real underlying issue. In this matter, our historians and forensic scientists are seriously derelict in their duty to the people of New Zealand and fourteen years of deliberate foot-dragging, silence, misrepresentation, misinformation or pretending that the document does not exist, must border on treason by state employees.

Loveridge writes: 'It should also be noted, in this regard, that “4th Feb.” is not a date which one would expect to find in the postscript of any draft version of the Treaty... This contextual point reinforces the conclusion that Busby simply made a mistake when writing or copying out the document which somehow ended up with Mr. Littlewood.' Red emphasis added.

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

Despite this continued untenable assumption of mis-dating our historians have never yet been able to produce even one document to validate their very dubious and faulted hypothesis. With that failure to validate, alone, they must give the date the benefit of the doubt and accept it at face value. Every ploy possible has been used by grievance-industry aligned historians, since 1992, to cast doubt on the integrity of the clearly and indisputably recorded date, executed by James Busby himself. Far from the date being illogical, it is only logical to assume that Busby would have written this date and no other, for the following reasons.

• At the time of writing the final draft it was absolutely unknown if a treaty would be secured, let alone when. Hobson told the chiefs to take as long as they wished in discussing the proposal and even mentioned, "a week", if necessary. The fact that the chiefs wished to sign on the 6th of February took Hobson completely by surprise. In view of the fact that some kind of provision or allowance had to be made in the layout for "a date"of signing, the obvious choice to include was that of the day when the document was being written. The translator could then leave a space at that point of the layout for the true and actual date when the proposition was accepted by the chiefs, should that ever occur.
  
  
• To say that Busby acted irrationally in this regard is quite ridiculous. He was adhering to very normal "custom and practice" in the creation of a draft document and acted as most responsible people would have under the same circumstances. There were two basic choices available to him: either include a date or not and he chose to include the date when pen was put to paper and the final draft was written. To put any other date, even the 5th of February, would have simply led to confusion, as the document was one written for "signing" and not merely "presentation" and, moreover, it was the final draft, being created on the 4th of February 1840.
  
  
• Busby also included an appended note with his earlier version draft of the day before (see See Busby's draft at Auckland Institute and Museum) and told posterity that this is what he "submitted" to Hobson on the 3rd of February 1840. Busby is likewise responsible for sending out the written invitations to the chiefs, inviting them to come to his home to attend the treaty assembly. There is no way that Busby, a week or so after the very memorable events of the 5th & 6th of February 1840 forgot the dates when the assembly or signing ceremonies took place. These recent dates were indelibly impressed upon his mind as the most grandiose and colourful days in regional history.

Despite all of the"strutting and fretting their hour upon the stage" this very emotive and pained farce, played out endlessly by grievance-industry aligned actors remains, as Shakespeare would have described it, "a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing". The extant historical record shows that the date is perfectly correct and beyond reproach, in consideration of all of the separate attributes of the Littlewood Treaty document, taken together in totality. Let's follow a chronology of recorded historical events and combine attributes of the Littlewood Treaty document to see if the written "date" stands up to scrutiny:

• The W Tucker 1833 paper stock upon which Busby's text is written is not from his onshore, regular stock in use at the time. For the eight pages of rough draft treaty notes that he penned, in two batches, during the 2nd and 3rd of February 1840, he used J & J Town Turkey Mill 1838 paper, kept at his official Residence at Waitangi. The paper was, likewise, not onboard stock from the H.M.S. Herald, as Hobson had used J Simmons 1838 paper to write the four pages he contributed to the earliest treaty drafting effort of around the 30th of January to the 1st of February 1840. This was the stock he had, undoubtedly, been issued at Portsmouth, England the year previously. Alternatively, James Stuart Freeman, Hobson's private secretary had been assigned to Hobson upon arrival at Sydney, Australia, by Governor Sir George Gipps. For Freeman's four page contribution to the early rough treaty drafts, he had used Dewdney & Co 1838 paper, obviously issued to him by the N.S.W. Government and kept in his shipboard secretarial portfolio. The W Tucker 1833 paper was the personal, onshore stock of James Reddy Clendon, U.S. Consul and loyal Englishman. Clendon lived in splendid semi-isolation three miles south of Kororareka, where there was deep water, in sheltered circumstances, close to the shoreline. From his eight room mansion house, warehouses and wharves, he ran a thriving mercantile and ship reprovisioning business.

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

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

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

Dr. Loveridge has the audacity to describe my very simple, documented claim that Busby visited Clendon on the 4th of February 1840 and wrote the final English draft of the treaty there as, "convoluted". He then proffers some utterly baseless and unprovable counter-explanations, suggesting Busby visiting Clendon on the 17th of February or so (for which no documented proof exists anywhere mentioning this mythical visit); We are then subjected to the logic of borrowing paper, as there are "no stationary stores" around (as a government employee, Busby received consignments of paper from the N.S.W. Government of Sir George Gipps for all of his official correspondence); Then we have Busby making a translation of the newly produced Maori printed sheet for Clendon (even though Busby wrote the final English draft from which the Maori text was derived and didn't need to back-translate it...and even though Clendon had years more experience with using the Maori language in his ongoing, daily business dealings or constant communication with local chiefs like Néné and Pomaré II, etc.); Or we have Busby needing to make a back-translation for himself, but, even with knowing that the treaty was signed on the sixth and even with reading the same on the printed Maori sheet, still managed to very stupidly mis-date his document as the 4th of February 1840.

And so Dr. Loveridge, what's so simple or logical about the ridiculous alternative explanations you've conjured up, none of which are backed by one morsel of documented proof? And, while you're at it, could you please explain to the people of New Zealand how the simple explanation of Hobson and Busby visiting Clendon on the 4th of February to complete the treaty drafting process is CONVOLUTED?

• Hobson was ashore when the final English draft of the Treaty of Waitangi was worked out and it was not written aboard H.M.S. Herald as several historians have loosely assumed. The historical record shows, conclusively, that Hobson left H.M.S. Herald in the afternoon of Monday the 3rd of February 1840 and went to Kororareka township to meet with James Busby at Busby's two room cottage there, which he had also visited in company with Felton Mathew and others the afternoon previously. Hobson did not return to the HMS Herald until the evening of Tuesday the 4th of February. The route he took in returning to the ship was, without doubt, from the home of Reverend Henry Williams at Paihia Mission Station (present day Te Haumi), situated less than three miles southwest of Kororareka and on the opposite side of the bay. The closest shore to shore crossing of the bay, in the near vicinity of the Paihia Mission Station where Williams and his family lived, was from James Reddy Clendon's home.
  
  
• The surviving "paper-trail" of historical documents shows us, convincingly, that the final English draft of the treaty was written at Clendon's mansion house. These are the same premises that later became the first Government House of New Zealand. After the final draft was written on Clendon's paper stock, it was taken directly across the short stretch of channel to Reverend Henry Williams for checking and approval, in the late afternoon of the 4th of February 1840 and handed, by Hobson to Williams, at 4 pm. Felton Mathew mentions in his letter to Sarah that he accompanied Hobson ashore to view Busby's two room cottage at Kororareka on Sunday the 2nd. We know that Hobson was aboard HMS Herald during the morning of the 3rd, as his secretary, James Stuart Freeman wrote a morning despatch letter to Sir George Gipps and gave the location and date of writing as H.M.S. Herald, Bay of Islands, 3 Feb. 1840. We further know from Reverend Richard Taylor's diary that Hobson remained on board into the afternoon and had a lengthy meeting with Reverend Henry Williams, later to be joined by Reverend Taylor and George Clark, who did an impromptu call-by to pay their respects.
  
  
• British Resident James Busby records how he took the treaty draft he'd worked on at his Waitangi residence, while Hobson was ill, and "submitted" it to Hobson on the evening of Monday the 3rd. We know that Hobson was ashore at this time at Kororareka, as Freeman's afternoon despatch gave the location and date as Kororarika, Bay of Islands, 3 February 1840. It would appear strongly that Hobson stayed the night at the cottage to try it out, as Felton Mathew records that Hobson entered into an agreement with Busby, on the 4th of February, to rent the cottage for his wife and family for one year at a cost of two hundred pounds per annum.
  
  
• James Stuart Freeman, who religiously recorded both the date and location where despatch letters were dictated and penned, wrote yet another despatch letter on the morning of the 4th of February 1840. At the time of writing he was neither aboard H.M.S. Herald, nor was he at Kororareka. He was at a more isolated and nondescript location in the bay. On this occasion he simply wrote: Bay of Islands, 4 February 1840.
  
  
• By the evening of the 4th of February, Hobson and Freeman had returned to the ship to ready themselves for the treaty assembly at Waitangi the next day. Freeman again wrote a despatch letter, this time recording the location and date as HMS Herald, Bay of Islands, 4 February 1840. For despatch letters of the next day he wrote H.M.S. Herald. Bay of Islands. 5th February 1840. In ensuing days he wrote: 16 Feb H.M.S. Herald, Bay of Islands then did the same for the 17th and 20th. Later, some of the entries included: 23 March, Waimate; 25 April Paihia; 25 May Govt. House, Russell, Bay of Islands; 15 June Govt. House, Russell, etc. Clearly, Freeman always named the location of writing , in the clearest terms possible, as a basic discipline of secretarial office. Moreover, his assigned duty was to hover in the shadow of Hobson, ever ready to record what necessity or the chief executive dictated.

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

• Clendon's home was reasonably isolated from the main town, Kororareka and the position where it was situated was called Point Omata on the admiralty chart. The terrain adjacent, which constituted the Clendon farm, and possibly encompassed the Point as well, was named Okiato. In Hobson's letter to Governor Sir George Gipps, dated 20th of April 1840, he writes: 'I have closed a preliminary arrangement with Mr. Clendon for the purchase of his property situated by the Koua Koua River, which is admirably well adapted for a township'. It's unknown if the spot had a well-established name, but neither Hobson or Surveyor General Felton Mathew, in their earliest written references to the Clendon estate, seemed to refer to the location by a specific placename.
  
  
• The extant paper trail, therefore, proves that Hobson was not aboard H.M.S. Herald within that space of those hours, between the morning and afternoon of the 4th of February 1840, when the final English draft of the Treaty of Waitangi was written. Also, it must be remembered that, even as Hobson made his delivery of a treaty proposition on the 5th of February 1840 before an assembly of over 1000 people, he still had no idea "if or when" there might be an agreement reached. He had scheduled a meeting for the 7th to further discuss the proposal, but had said to the chiefs as they retired to discuss the weighty matters '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; quote from Sir James Henare, Council of Chiefs of Ngapuhi, 1987). It's a well recorded historical fact that, when the chiefs decided to sign on the 6th of February 1840, the decision took Hobson completely by surprise. A somewhat flustered Hobson, once alerted, had to rush ashore in civilian clothes, rather than in full dress uniform, for the otherwise auspicious signing ceremony. In consideration of the fact that no signing date could be even, remotely, predicted or scheduled, Busby's natural tendency, on the 4th of February 1840 would be to accurately record the actual date when pen was put to paper and the final English draft was written. It was then a dated, historical record of an event or drafting task brought to a point of reasonable completion, requiring now only vetting and approval by the translator.
  
  
• A close study of the geography of the Bay of Islands further supports the logic that the serene seclusion of Clendon's splendid premises would have been the a superb choice for a composed, final drafting environment. The estate sat closer to the home of Reverend Henry Williams than the mooring position of H.M.S. Herald, adjacent to Korarareka township. Hobson was in dire need of composed circumstances in which to complete this urgent work, having had a terrible argument with Captain Nias on the Saturday night previous, which had severely incapacitated Hobson and placed his treaty writing incentive in jeopardy. It was because of that argument, and the migraine headaches that ensued, that Busby had to jump into the breach and take over the drafting effort on Sunday the 2nd of February and beyond. The final draft was written by Busby under Hobson's direction. The use of Clendon's W Tucker 1833 paper constitutes a major clue leading to an understanding of Hobson's movements of the 4th of February 1840. Dr. Donald Loveridge, in the absence of any substantiating historical facts to the contrary, must take into account that the use of Clendon's paper, coupled with Busby's inclusion of the date, 4th Feb. 1840, is strongly suggestive of Clendon's participation, at his own home, in the final drafting session.
  

• Dr. Loveridge states 'Mr. Doutré has not reproduced any explicit statement by another participant or contemporary showing that the American consul was involved in the process on the 3rd and 4th of February. Indeed, one of the statements which Mr. Doutré quotes strongly suggests that this was not the case. When the Rev. Richard Taylor visited Clendon’s house on the afternoon of the 4th, in time to ‘take tea’ with his host, the missionary apparently did not encounter Hobson, Busby, Williams or any of the other known participants there, even though this was at almost the exact time (“about 4 o’clock p.m.”, according to Williams) when the final English draft of the Treaty was handed over to Williams by Hobson'. Red emphasis added.

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

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

Williams' choice of wording shows his utter detachment from and non-participation in the final English drafting event and that he was not with Hobson, Busby, Clendon, Freeman or others in that final drafting session. After the draft was finished, Hobson had to travel to the home of Reverend Williams, hand the draft over for translation and then organise arrangements for the following day. Williams, well aware of the urgency in completing this task prior to the morning, when both he and Hobson would be obliged to stand before an audience of over one thousand people and read treaty texts in both English and Maori, commenced the translation work. He undertook the task with the full assistance of his twenty-one year old son, Edward Marsh Williams, considered to be a scholar par excellence in the Nga Puhi dialect, and together they completed the translation overnight. Logic and basic practicalities of function tell us that they did this from the comfort of their own home at the CMS Mission station, with ready access to their Maori language "Alphabet & Grammar", writing materials and large capacity teapot, primed for the overnight vigil ahead.

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

So, the very brief account of activities of the day from Reverend Taylor's diary entry of the 4th of February in no wise proves that Hobson was not at Clendon's home earlier that day and, in fact, is supportive of Hobson having been there. Amongst other things it proves that Clendon was certainly there and not otherwise engaged at some distant location and unavailable. Most assuredly, Hobson and his entourage would have left Clendon's by about 2:30 PM - 3 PM in the afternoon of the 4th to travel by boat across the harbour to the CMS Mission Station and deliver the document to Williams at the prearranged rendezvous point and time. Although a very adept linguist himself, Reverend Williams was leaving nothing to chance and the talents of his twenty one year old son, Edward, who had been raised amongst Nga Puhi, were immediately pressed into service. Basic logic would allow us to conclude that Edward's participation had been premeditated and planned and that he was there at home with his father, awaiting Hobson's arrival with the final draft. This prearrangement would have been worked out the previous day during Hobson's meeting with Reverend Williams aboard H.M.S. Herald.

• Dr. Donald Loveridge discredits historian Ian Wards' 1968 statement that: 'A Treaty, soon to be known as the Treaty of Waitangi, was prepared with 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). In Ward's bibliography he listed Dr. James Rutherford, The Treaty of Waitangi, as one of his resources for material in that section of his book. If Wards was referring to Tauranga missionary, Alfred Nesbit Brown, then it doesn't appear that there is anything on record to support that contention. If, however, as Dr. Phil Parkinson suggests, Wards meant Captain Gordon Brown, who frequently delivered printed supplies, by sea, from the CMS Mission press at Paihia, Bay of Islands, to coastal mission stations around New Zealand, then the statement has weight (See William Colenso's Day & Waste Book, entry for March 4th 1840, Auckland Institute and Museum). Red emphasis added.
  
  
• Amidst the Clendon House Papers at Auckland Library is a back-translation of the Maori Tiriti O Waitangi by Captain Gordon Brown. This version by Brown also appears in the papers of Donald McLean and Dr. Parkinson suggests that the Gordon Brown translation was possibly used for reference at the Kohimarama Conference of July, 1860. With due consideration of the fact that Ian Wards had worked in Archives N.Z. since 1948 and had enjoyed constant access to our historical documents when he wrote this book twenty years on, one would have to suspect that his statement was based upon sound knowledge. It seems unlikely that the man who rose to the position of Chief Government Historian would be inclined towards making utterly unsubstantiated and wild statements, with no basis in documented fact. It would be easy to surmise that the content of this brief passage in his book was not considered to carry any great importance by Wards, and that it was merely offered as a minor, passing observation, based upon documented evidence seen in the course of the years, but inadequately referenced in this instance.
  
  
• In writing about Clendon's sale of his Okiato estate, I had to rely solely on copies of Dr. James Rutherford's typescript reproductions of original documents, formerly viewable within the Clendon House Papers. The originals that Rutherford earlier worked from have long since disappeared from those files, as have so many other of our original documents, especially in recent years of radical "Treaty Revisionism". Although second generation typescripts sometimes exist, many original documents are now irretrievably lost. With all due respect to be accorded to a long-standing historian like Ian Wards, I would have to give him the benefit of the doubt. His statement about Clendon is most certainly supported by the fact that Busby's final draft text, signed off on the 4th of February 1840 and perfectly mirroring the Maori translation, is written on none other than Clendon's W Tucker 1833 paper.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In Summary:

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

The paper trail, with supportive commentary from Felton Mathew's diary entries or Freeman's despatch letter titles, etc., positively shows that Hobson was not on board H.M.S. Herald on the evening of the 3rd of February 1840, when a draft in progress was 'submitted' by Busby for Hobson's consideration. Dr. Claudia Orange withdrew from her earlier strong assertion that the final drafting took place aboard H.M.S. Herald and stated as much in a letter to Ross Baker, One New Zealand Foundation historian, wherein she wrote: Many thanks for all your helpful work! I meant that between 1 and 3 Feb inclusive missionaries and Hobson met - either on ship or shore - but not much conclusive evidence of who and where and when... Claudia Orange' (Letter to Ross Baker, January 11th, 2005). Red emphasis added.

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

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

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

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

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

James Reddy Clendon's 1830's map of the Bay of Islands. Position (1) is where HMS Herald was moored in sufficiently deep water at the ships' anchorage offshore of Kororareka township. Position (2) is the town, situated half a kilometre from the Herald (.34 of a mile). Position (3) is where the home of James Reddy Clendon was situated, 5 kilometres by water (3.1 miles) from Kororareka. Position (4) is where the CMS Mission Station and Reverend Henry William's home were located, only 1.2 kilometres (.75 of a mile) by water away from Clendon's home. The boat journey from the mission station to the Herald was 4.7 kilometres (2.6 miles). Position (5) is "Hobson's Landing" at Waitangi, situated 3.9 kilometres (2.4-miles) further up the coast from the southern extremities of the CMS Mission station or 3 kilometres (1.9 miles) from the Herald's mooring. Hobson's full circuit from Kororareka and back to the Herald, including dropping off the British Resident, would have been about 13 kilometres.

On Saturday the 1st of February Hobson had hired a whaleboat to be at his permanent disposal for transportation around the bay (See Unpublished Letters Of Felton Mathew to Sarah Mathew, pg. 10, entry for Saturday 1st of February 1840, Special Collections, Auckland Public Library). On a couple of occasions in his letters Felton Mathew mentioned the rowers of the whaler, one time stating: 'I have a capital crew and they pulled away like Hermes' (See entry for the 14th of March 1840).

Felton Mathew did exactly the same trip to Clendon's on the 13th of March, as Hobson had done on the 4th of February. At that time Mathew was living at Busby's two room rented cottage with Willoughby Shortland and James Stuart Freeman at Kororareka, which was now the office of the Colonial Secretary. He writes: 'I engaged this morning an English boat crew, and put them to immediate work, by pulling up the harbour to the house of a Mr. Clendon, the American Consul, with whom I had some business'.

3. Was all treaty drafting in English completed by the 4th of February 1840?

• James Reddy Clendon, quite obviously, took his own transcript of the final English draft, written on his own stock of W Tucker 1833 paper, which had been laboriously developed to that point of completion. Hobson, Busby and the others arrived at a point where they were satisfied that this is what they wished to convey to the Maori chiefs on the following day. The creation of an English treaty draft had been a difficult process, extending over, at least, the previous five or six days and that process was not yet fully complete, as there was still one major hurdle to cross. The draft still had to go under the scrutiny of Reverend Henry Williams and both discussion and consultation would need to take place between Hobson the legislator and Williams the translator. Williams stated in his memoirs: '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, and yet permitting no alterations which would destroy the original spirit and tenor of the treaty' (see The Treaty of Waitangi, by TL Buick, pg. 113). Red emphasis added.
  
  
• After visiting Reverend Henry Williams at 4 PM on the 4th of February, Hobson would have had to tarry long enough for Williams to check the text thoroughly. In Williams' translation there could be no ambiguity. He also had to be satisfied that for every English word included on the draft, an equivalent Maori word existed. Thankfully, the complex, pretentious language of the earlier rough drafts had, by this point, been stripped out and what remained was a very basic, no-nonsense text. Had Williams required it, Hobson would have been obliged to substitute in new words or phrases, under expert advice from Williams, to preserve the meaning Hobson wished to convey. Williams, after due consideration and confident that a precise translation was achievable, obviously, gave his nod of approval and Hobson could go on his merry way, content that the English drafting stage was completed. He should have slept well that night, for the first time in several worrisome nights.
  
  
• Even at that the task was not complete. Just as Hobson's final English draft needed to be approved after possible adjustment, so did Reverend Henry Williams' translation. On the morning of the 5th of February 1840, Hobson, Williams, Busby and Taylor met at the home of the British Resident and carefully reviewed Reverend Williams' translation. Busby asked for a substitution, and the word huihuinga was crossed out and whakaminenga written in its place. We can see from this that the treaty writing, correcting and perfecting process carried on right up until the last possible minute.
  
  
• What James Reddy Clendon had, obviously, copied down at his home during the afternoon of the 4th of February 1840, was merely a stage in the development of the treaty text, but further stages were to follow and he had no way of knowing if changes were yet going to be made to the text. If Hobson was ultimately successful in securing a treaty with the Maori chiefs, then Clendon, in his capacity as U.S. Consul, would be obliged to instruct the U.S. Secretary of State in Washington D.C. that the formation of a British colony was underway in New Zealand. To make up a complete despatch, Clendon would need official documents and these would have to be "formally" issued, after a treaty was secured, to the U.S. Consul by the Hobson Government.
  
  
• Hobson was successful as, to everybody's surprise except Reverend Richard Taylor who had anticipated an early decision and prepared for it, the chiefs wanted to sign the treaty on the morning of the 6th of February 1840. A day later on the 7th it rained incessantly and on the 8th, in better weather, a 21 gun salute was made to honour Queen Victoria and Hobson read a Proclamation. On the 11th of February Hobson left the Bay to go to other treaty assemblies and he did not return until the 14th. By that time, chiefs in other northern districts had signed the treaty and Hobson was preparing to sail to the Thames for yet other assemblies. James Reddy Clendon still awaited the essential, "official" documentation he needed to complete his US despatch No. 6. Finally, on the 17th of February the CMS Mission press produced two hundred official Maori language copies of the treaty and we can surmise, with confidence, that some of these sheets were given to James Reddy Clendon on that same day.
  
  
• It seems likely that Hobson was in attendance with chief Pomaré II and James Clendon on the 17th of February when Clendon signed the treaty of Waitangi in behalf of the chief. On or about that day Clendon received printed copies of Te Tiriti O Waitangi and it's probable that he already had in his possession the two Proclamation sheets, printed by the CMS Mission press for the government, immediately upon Hobson's arrival in the country. These had been read to the settlers on the 30th of January 1840 at Kororareka church. Unfortunately for Clendon and, seemingly, in conflict with everyone's expectations, no English text of the treaty was produced, only the official Maori one. Clendon, therefore, had everything he required to make up his despatch No. 6, except for one very central, all important item. The missing ingredient was the definitive, "official" English treaty text, describing in precise language, exactly what the terms and conditions were that the British had entered into in securing a treaty with the Maori chiefs, leading to the formation of a British colony.

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

And here we come to the crux of the matter. What did Clendon actually say and what did Clendon actually mean in the appended note that he send with his English treaty text transcript in despatch No.6? Also, what mechanisms did Clendon put in motion after this time in order to ascertain that the Government of the United States of America receive the "official", definitive English wording of the treaty of Waitangi, as recognised and supplied by Lieutenant Governor William Hobson himself?

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

Loveridge is critical of my statement that the Americans might have wished to print public notification concerning the formation of a British Colony in New Zealand and writes: 'Doutré, Littlewood Treaty, p.87. I cannot imagine why the Americans would have published the Treaty as “a gazette notice” in one of their newspapers, and as far as I am aware the U.S. authorities never did so.' Regardless of what the U.S. authorities ultimately did or didn't do with the intelligence forwarded to them by Clendon, the prerogative was theirs to exercise at their discretion and Clendon's responsibility, as U.S. Consul, was to provide correct information for use by his superiors.

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

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

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

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

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

• Clendon, in his very responsible position as U.S. Consul was utterly safe in calling his transcript a Translation, for it did indeed convey the meaning of the Maori text accurately, and that was the primary objective of the preliminary intelligence contained within the despatch he was sending. At the same time, Clendon knew that he had only transcribed a "stage" of the draft as it neared completion. It still had to go yet further afield for final expert assessment by Reverend Henry Williams and there was a high likelihood that certain English words, phases and nuances would undergo change, by Williams, to achieve a precise translation of the original "meaning and tenor" that Hobson wished be conveyed. It would not be correct to state that Clendon knew, categorically, he held in his possession any finalised English text. He knew it was very close to the finished product and he could, undoubtedly, see that simply by his reading of the printed Maori sheet.
  
  
• Clendon, in the cautious approach he took to stating the true position, wrote that the transcript he was sending was not a copy of the "official" document in English from which the native one was made. In stating this he was absolutely correct. The official English document, or mother document could only be the one that survived the modifications of translator, in consultation with the legislator and the final executive decisions they made together in close consultation. All that Clendon had seen, advised concerning or transcribed was a "work in progress", nearing completion. Reverend Henry Williams was not present when Clendon's transcription was made, but awaited Hobson and the draft at his CMS Mission residence, where is son Edward was in attendance to assist.
  
  
• An incident had also occurred at the treaty grounds on the sixth, wherein the Catholic Bishop, Pompallier, had interrupted the proceedings to ask for an added amendment. Busby records, 'In the course of a few minutes the French Bishop attended by one of his priests, pushed forward to the side of Capt. Hobson & requested "That the natives might be informed that all who should join the Catholic religion should have protection of the British Government". Capt. H. with much blandness observed "most certainly" and expressed his regret that he had not made known his wish earlier as "Your desire should have been embodied in the Treaty" and turning to me requested that I would thus explain the wish of the Bishop. I observed to Cap. H. I presumed the same protection would be afforded to all. He said certainly. I asked what need of this announcement if all would have protection alike. Capt. H. observed that as the Bishop wished the communication to be made he should feel obliged by my delivering the same to the meeting...' A written note guaranteeing general religious freedom was produced and shown to the Catholic Bishop, who said, 'Oh yes, that will do'. This amendment or addition has sometimes been referred to as the 4th Article of the Treaty of Waitangi. Clendon, who either witnessed this manoeuvre by Pompallier or, undoubtedly, heard about it later, would have been justified in assuming that the incident might lead to a modification of the treaty text. As it turns out, the text was already all-encompassing enough to accommodate this belated (some say tactically and deliberately disruptive) request by the Catholic Bishop and didn't require modification (See James Busby's Papers, Auckland Institute and Museum). Busby also mentions that: 'This account... was sent to the Editor of the Protestant Magazine and published in that periodical.' Red emphasis added.
  
  
• Clendon was correct in stating that: the words may be different from what they were in the original but I think the sense is much the same. He needed to see the Hobson & Williams "final-final" to ascertain if that text varied in any degree to what he had transcribed at his home on the afternoon of the 4th of February. He needed to see, amongst other things, if anything was added at the behest of Bishop Pompallier. Knowing now that the treaty had been signed on the 6th of February, he could add that date to his transcript and despatch it as a reliable representation or translation of the treaty text in Maori, but would yet seek further documentation and clarification from Hobson.
  
  
• Dr. Donald Loveridge, in his report, omits mention of the second half of Clendon's temporary disclaimer, which says: '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.' So, what Clendon does not know for certain at that moment, he promises he will find out and, moreover, he will acquire the necessary goods directly from Hobson and send those "official" texts, both in English and Maori, to the Government of the United States. Red emphasis added.
  
  
• Most officials in Clendon's position would have acted in exactly the same cautionary manner. The onus of responsibility was on Hobson to supply the U.S. Consul with satisfactory, official documentation proving Maori chiefly cession of sovereignty to Queen Victoria and legitimate British annexation. Clendon was both a loyal Englishman and U.S. Consul at the same time and this position of split loyalties was the subject of some comment by Americans officials like Commodore Charles Wilkes. Clendon had to maintain the dignity of his high office and preserve the amicable, co-operative relationships that existed between the British and American fleets in the region. Hobson showed all due respect for Clendon's position and later made a special effort to supply Clendon with everything the U.S. Consul had officially requested. In doing so Hobson's Government observed proper diplomatic protocol in their dealings with the American Government.

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

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

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

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

This letter was written by Clendon, acknowledging that he had received what he had requested. We know from what he wrote to the U.S. Secretary of State that the main item he lacked was the official wording in English, but would ask for 'a copy and translation for the purpose of sending it to the government of the United States.' He ultimately did all that he said he would do. It was, generally well known and accepted that the solitary "Treaty" was a text in the Maori language. The text in English assumed the secondary title of the "Translation". In the true chronology of historical events the roles were the reverse of this, as the English text had preceded the Maori and, in true terms, it was the Maori text that was the actual translation.

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

This is what was given to Clendon by the Hobson Government. The hand-written text in the Maori language, penned by the official translator, Henry Williams, can still be found amongst the Clendon House Papers in Special Collections, Auckland Public Library. This document has the words "True Copy" in the top left corner and is signed off JAStuart Freeman (James Stuart Freeman). This is the kind of "formally prepared", official document that was befitting the high office of the Consul the United States. The two lighter colouration pictures show the front and rear faces of the "Littlewood Treaty" document, which was, two weeks after receiving it from the Colonial Secretary, supplied by Clendon to Commodore Charles Wilkes of the US Antarctic Expeditionary Squadron for transcription. We know positively that it was the Littlewood Treaty document that Wilkes handled and transcribed. It later went to Clendon's solicitor, Henry Littlewood and survived until modern times amongst the Littlewood family papers. Again, with provision of the authentic final English draft, Hobson's government had, with all-due dignity and respect, made available a document befitting the high office of the Consul of the United States.

Clendon could now see, for the first time, that Reverend Williams had found the text, handed to him on the 4th, quite satisfactory and had not required any changes. Nor had Bishop Pompallier's request on the 6th of February led to any amendments. The English text had remained essentially the same as that which Clendon had transcribed at the final English drafting session, the only real differences relating to some spelling and capitilisation. After Clendon knew the date when a treaty was secured he, obviously, wrote that onto his transcript from the 4th of February, for transmission to the United States Government in despatch No. 6 of the 20th of February 1840.

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 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 use of the term "Translation" to describe the English version was fairly general. Because the Maori Tiriti was indisputably "The Treaty" and the whole point of the entire drafting exercise, anything in English immediately assumed the secondary or subservient position of a "Translation". In the hypocritical approach that grievance-industry aligned historians take to the subject matter, they are not averse to switching the titles if it helps their case. A good example of this tactic relates to one of the grievance-industry "holy-cows"... a much revered item that they call "The Certified Treaty". In the latter half of February 1840 James Stuart Freeman sent one of his several "Formal Royal Style" composites to Australia and used some available space at the end of it as a business section to inform Hobson's superiors of recent successes in gaining signatures from the chiefs. Two hundred copies of the "official" Maori treaty text had been printed by William Colenso on the C.M.S. Mission press on the 17th of February and three of these were included within what Freeman was sending. Because of these newly printed copies, Freeman penned a "certification" statement into his business section and then had Reverend Henry Williams sign it. Freeman's statement read:

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

Grievance-industry aligned historians, using a cunningly deceptive "sleight-of-hand" trick, try to make it look like Williams' statement relates to the Formal Royal Style English text. They're quick to point out: 'See, Henry Williams himself certified this "English" text as the official English"... so in this instance they are more than happy to call the English text the "Translation". The reality is of course that Williams was not certifying Freeman's Royal Style, patchwork quilt, composite text, which he'd had no hand in creating, but was certifying, instead, his "Translation", in the Maori language, of the final English draft he'd been handed on the 4th of February 1840. He was certifying the accuracy of his work as official translator, after printed replications of his translation had become available and were being sent abroad in that despatch enclosure. Red emphasis added.

4. Was James Reddy Clendon actively involved in trying to convince the Maoris to sign the Treaty of Waitangi and establishing a British Colony in New Zealand?

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

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

Here's what actually happened:

Up until Saturday 1st of February and Sunday 2nd of February 1840, when Hobson fell very ill because of violent arguments with Captain Joseph Nias of H.M.S. Herald, he'd been content enough to do the treaty drafting himself, with the solitary assistance of James Stuart Freeman, his secretary and probable input from other members of his immediate staff. Essentially, Busby's position as British Consul was eclipsed the moment Hobson, Busby's consular replacement, arrived in the bay on the 29th of January 1840. With the unexpected set-back of debilitating illness, Hobson had no option but to go "cap in hand" to ask, through George Cooper, for Busby's much needed help. Busby made himself available immediately and unconditionally, then worked like a Trojan over the next two days to both oversee and salvage the floundering treaty programme of his ailing replacement consul.

Busby, now at the helm, put several things in place immediately to remedy the stalemated or declining situation, including getting Hobson distanced from the source of his immediate vexation and troubles, Captain Nias. After Cooper handed Busby the very undeveloped rough notes, we can safely surmise at church on Sunday the 2nd of February, it's obvious that there was some very matter-of-fact discussion about what had befallen Hobson, followed by some quick remedial decisions and suggestions by Busby. By the same afternoon, Felton Mathew and other members of Hobson's staff, who had been with Busby at Paihia during the morning, had taken Hobson to view Busby's two room cottage at Kororareka. Busby was providing Hobson with an escape route from the hostile environment he was in aboard ship in Nias's obstructive domain Let’s review some first-person accounts of incidents that demonstrate the degree of this worsening rift between Nias and Hobson, as extracted from the letters of Surveyor General, Felton Mathew to his wife, Sarah:

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

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

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

It seems that Busby pulled out all the stops and mustered his own support network to get the urgent work done. What he accomplished in the course of about 48-hours is quite astonishing and, during that period, Busby was acting very much like the chief executive, overseeing the whole treaty writing programme. The itineraries, venues of meeting and discussion or key participants for the next two days seem to have been organised by Busby, who also appears to have called upon Reverend Henry Williams to step fully into the breach and act as a back-stop. It would appear that, as of Sunday the 2nd of February, Hobson was considered to be a frail participant of known delicate constitution, to be carried and much-supported within Busby's organised programme. Should Hobson have a relapse of serious illness, the job was still going to be done on time, and it no longer depended fully and finally on Hobson himself. He would be nurtured, propped-up, encouraged and mollycoddled to whatever degree was necessary and relieved of all pressure, such that he could recuperate and regain sufficient strength. All Hobson really had to do within that 48-hour period was consider and review the tenets of Busby's developing draft and make the required modifications or additions, such that the final document was in keeping with the requirements of Lord Normanby's, Colonial Office instructions. The hard slog writing and thinking were now Busby's responsibility.

With the vast amount of pressure removed and the treaty writing burden now carried mainly on Busby's broad and experienced shoulders, Hobson rallied in health and improved quickly in strength, although his countenance was still a bit pallid and sickly as he left the treaty grounds on the 5th of February 1840. Through Sunday and Monday Busby wrote copiously, putting real flesh on the barebones of Hobson and Freeman's rough notes, which consisted of little more than Preambles or scant ideas for some Articles. Hobson was now drawn fully into Busby's inner circle of long-time supporters, including his foremost friend, James Reddy Clendon. We can safely surmise that, on all sides, the red carpet was rolled out for Hobson by Busby's support group, who were now cognizant of Hobson's frailty. He was extended kindness and hospitality, pending completion of the treaty. The chief executive needed rest and sustenance to build up his energy levels for facing the demanding public responsibilities of Wednesday the 5th of February 1840, when he would be required to stand erect, in the full stature of imposing British dignity, before a huge assembly, as Queen Victoria's duly appointed and eloquent representative.

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

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

Of James Reddy Clendon's influence in convincing the chiefs to sign the Treaty of Waitangi document, 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 TL Buick, pg. 149 footnote).

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

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

As for Dr. Loveridge's contention that the 1835 Declaration of Independence for the Confederation of United Chiefs was not considered to be a guideline, "legislative" or "legal" text that influenced British policy towards New Zealand, it was most certainly given recognition by the British Parliament and the Colonial Office in lieu of anything else. The text was written by British Resident James Busby, apparently for the primary purpose of declaring that New Zealand was a sovereign and independent nation ruled by its Maori chiefs. The northern signatories to the declaration were only a small minority of the chiefs around New Zealand, but the apparent purpose of the document was to tell certain international superpowers, like France, "hands-off".

Busby was sent to New Zealand as British Consul or Resident as a direct consequence of the letter of the northern chiefs to King William in 1831, asking the king to be their Protector. The chiefs were very worried about the "tribe of Marian", meaning Marc-Joseph Marion du Fresne or, more specifically, the French. Northern Maori had murdered Marion du Fresne along with a large number of his crew and, by 1831, feared French reprisals and annexation of their country by the nation of France. To dissuade the French from coming and scare them off, the northern chiefs had flown a British Union Jack flag from a Bay of Islands flagpole overlooking the harbour.

LETTER OF THE 13 CHIEFS.

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

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

The foregoing is a literal translation of the accompanying document.

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

* Marian, meant Marc-Joseph Marion du Fresne.

Lord Normanby later wrote in 1839:

I have already stated that we acknowledge New Zealand as a sovereign and independent state so far at least as is possible to make that acknowledgement in favour of a people composed of numerous dispersed and petty tribes, who possess few political relations to each other, and are incompetent to act or even deliberate in concert. But the admission of their rights, though inevitably qualified by this consideration, is binding on the faith of the British Crown. The Queen, in common with Her Majesty's predecessor, disclaims for herself and Her subjects every pretension to seize on the Islands of New Zealand, or to govern them as a part of the Dominions of Great Britain unless the free intelligent consent of the natives, expressed according to their established usages, shall first be obtained (See: Lord Normanby's 4200-word Colonial Office Brief to Hobson, The Treaty of Waitangi, by T.L. Buick, pp. 70-79). Red emphasis added.

HAS THE TRUE "FINAL ENGLISH DRAFT" BEEN FOUND AMONGST THE "ROYAL STYLE VERSIONS", AS DR. PHIL PARKINSON AND DR. DONALD LOVERIDGE WOULD HAVE US BELIEVE?

Dr. Loveridge writes:

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

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

One of two Formal Royal Style versions found in the Volume of Repatriated Despatches G 30-1 pp 29 to 32 at Archives New Zealand. In the case of each of these, plus one other, penned and sent through James Stuart Freeman to the United States in July 1840, the Preamble section is wholly the one Freeman created about February 1st 1840. Other than that, the Articles follow what Busby wrote in his rough drafts, terminating on the 3rd of February 1840. There is no content in here, other than some linking words to tie concepts together, that is not found in the 16-pages of rough notes finalised by the 3rd of February 1840. This version is just another of what Historian Ruth Ross called "Composites"... a sort of "patchwork quilt" assembled from the "rough notes", solely for overseas despatch and laced with high-falutin, pretentious language.

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

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

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

Let's now look at what these grievance-industry aligned historians are trying to "fob-off"on an unsuspecting public as the final draft English text from which Te Tiriti O Waitangi was created. Look carefully at all the extra words or topsy-turvy concepts (coloured blue with some of the more blatant placenames or words coloured Red) that did not get included in the Maori text; Look carefully at the order in which concepts or sentences appear; Consider where Hobson puts his name, etc., etc. It is absolutely impossible that adept translators, who had lived in New Zealand permanently for 17-years by that time, speaking Maori fluently every day or engaged in writing and translating English documents into the Maori language constantly, could make such a "botch-up" of a translation. It stretches credibility beyond the extreme for our so-called scholars to, seriously, advocate something so patently laughable. But then again, they're simply "social engineers" hiding behind a facade of scholarly respectability.

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

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

The "Official" version that the grievance industry would prefer New Zealanders to place themselves into subjection and slavery under is the following, which is another of the seven or so differing Formal Royal Style versions that James Stuart Freeman concocted to impress overseas dignitaries. Again, there is no content in here that is not found in the rough draft note texts, which terminated on the 3rd of February 1840. The final draft was written afterwards, on the 4th of February 1840 and the only true treaty, written in the Maori language was derived from that. The only real difference between the "official" version (below) and the erroneously claimed "final draft" (above) is that the top one has Freeman's Preamble and is a little less wordy, whereas the bottom one has Hobson's Preamble.

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

Hobson's Preamble is closer to the "real thing" than Freeman's. Nevertheless, this was much simplified in the real or actual "final-final" draft of the 4th of February 1840. New Zealanders, especially those with a background in translation work, are hereby encouraged to closely compare these Formal Royal Style texts to the 1869 back-translation of Te Tiriti O Waitangi by Mr. T.E. Young of the Native Department.

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

Here, below is the authentic "final English draft", found by John Littlewood and his sister, Beryl Needham in Pukekohe, South Auckland, in 1989. It took the intervention of members of Parliament to finally force Archives New Zealand authorities to put the document on permanent public display in the year 2000. In its' Constitution Room vault case, the document is displayed so that the public can't see the second side, where all of the problematic text is found, including guarantees of absolute EQUALITY for all New Zealanders and the 4th of February date, showing the document to be positively Hobson's final English draft. To this day, the authorities will not make a general public admission or announcement that the document is in the handwriting of British Resident, James Busby:

Below is a comparison of the texts. The coloured region is the wording that the grievance-industry hopes you'll never realise is there:

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

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

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

• 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.
  
  
• 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’.
  
  
• These changes by Williams are further compelling proof that the Littlewood document is the final English draft, inasmuch as any later back-translation would simply parrot exactly what the Maori text said in emphasising Maori in the Preamble and Article III,. The fact that these subtle differences exist shows that the Littlewood document is a pre-treaty draft, not a back-translation and it's date positively identifies it as the last English draft written.
  
  
• Dr. Phil Parkinson, Graham Langton, Dr. Paul Moon and Dr, Claudia Orange, etc., have either written that it was a pre-treaty"draft" or have intimated as much in their past comments, but have had to retreat to other positions more recently, seemingly under pressure from superiors or overseers. Here are some examples of earlier admissions:

1. Dr. Phil Parkinson wrote: ‘Although nothing can be proven I think that what Hobson read [at Waitangi on the 5th of February 1840] was not the “Her most gracious Majesty . . .” text (which has a rather stiff and formal preamble) but rather the simpler and less formal Littlewood one “Her Majesty Victoria . . .” ..... Dr Orange, in a document of 5 October 1992, considered that Dr Loveridge was “probably correct” in deducing that the Littlewood document was “a translation of the Maori treaty” but what Loveridge said was that the “translation from the native document” and “the Maori version on which it was based” both bore the date of 6 February (rather than 4 February). But this is not really satisfactory. The Busby / Littlewood document of 4 February is not a translation of the Maori text of the treaty because that translation was written on 5 February, by Henry Williams.’ (see: Letter response from Dr. Phil Parkinson to Martin Doutré, 25507 Doutre, AT 13/19/4, 24th of December 2003). Red emphasis added.
   
   
2. Dr. Loveridge observes how Dr. Claudia Orange, 'was not entirely satisfied with my proposition that the “4th Feb. 1840” date on the Littlewood document was likely to have been the result of a copying error...'
   
   
3. ‘Archivist and historian Graham Langton said the Littlewood Treaty had “no status whatsoever” but unlike Dr. Parkinson’s view, said it was “very likely” it was documentation from before the signing of the treaty on February 6.
   Mr. Langton said “it was probably a draft version and it was possible it was the final draft but added: So what?” (see National Business Review, pg. 13, March 4, 2005). Red emphasis added.
   
   
4. ‘I agree that the Littlewood document is dated 4 February 1840, and that there was almost certainly no subsequent drafting of the Treaty’s English text’ (See excerpt from Dr. Paul Moon’s letter to treaty researcher, Ross Baker, 30/08/2004 and posted onto the O.N.Z.F. website).
   
   
5. ‘On 30th March, US Commodore Charles Wilkes, Antarctic explorer, arrived in the Vincennes to join his other ships Porpoise and Flying Fish. Damaged after their bruising exploration of the icy land, they reprovisioned and repaired their ships till late April. As he left Clendon gave him a further despatch containing a hand-written copy of the Treaty in English copied from Busby’s copy of the final draft. It is believed that Clendon then retained Busby’s copy of the Treaty’ (see The Treaty and Its Times, by Paul Moon & Peter Biggs, chpt. 9, pg. 213).

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

As earlier referred to twice for the extraction of excerpts, Loveridge writes:

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

This commentary by Loveridge contains ridiculous logic, which is also very mischievous. If New Zealanders agree to this manipulative guile, they are being led or coerced away from the inalienable rights that were enshrined and available to them under the true treaty. The true final English draft says exactly what Te Tiriti O Waitangi says, that we are all absolutely EQUAL under the law, with no special customary rights for anyone over anyone else; no partnerships, etc., just British subjects altogether, with exactly the same rights and obligations. As a tactic in eroding away the treaty's all-encompassing and all-inclusive sharing of rights, political activists and their lackey's have to beguile us into believing that the "final draft" isn't actually the "final draft", but that a defective, very inferior substitute is, in fact, the "real McCoy".

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

• The final draft was never intended to be signed by anyone. It was simply a transitory English document preceding the Treaty document in Maori. There is no logic in saying it should have been dated the 5th of February, as there was no intention or expectation that anything would be signed on the 5th of February or, plausibly, anytime within a week of that date.
  
  
• Busby dated the document the 4th, as that's the date the document was written. This factor constitutes further compelling proof that it is "the final English draft", as any back-translation made after the signing event would definitely carry the date of the sixth. Busby had two choices when writing the final draft. He could either include the date of writing or leave the space blank. He made the very practical choice to record the date of writing. The final draft then became a memorial document recording the date when a manifold and very historic legislative task was completed.

Preliminary Summary:

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

Politically-aligned social historians, who often act within lucrative roles as "treaty consultants", try to convince us that we are obliged to recognise an English Formal Royal Style Treaty text that gives no rights to most New Zealanders, but exclusive rights to a small minority faction within New Zealand society. For consultants who continue to find in favour of the grievance-industry, there is continuity of work and income. For those who do not find in favour of the grievance-industry and its preferred version of events, the "Cash-Cow" saunters off to greener meadows, leaving the non-compliant consultant to face career suicide and academic obscurity.

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

He Iwi Tahi Tatou- We Are Now One People!

Martin Doutré, 14th of July, 2006.

To be continued.