THE LITTLEWOOD TREATY IS THE FINAL DRAFT OF OUR TREATY OF WAITANGI

There is no doubt in my mind but that the Littlewood Treaty, penned by James Busby on the 4th of February 1840, is the final English draft from which the Maori Treaty of Waitangi was created.

The salient points are:

• The Littlewood Treaty document is written on W. Tucker 1833 paper, which shows that the paper predates, but is very contemporary to the time of, the 1840 Treaty.
  
  
• The pedigree of the document, down through the Littlewood family, is impeccable, as their forebear, Henry Littlewood, was a prominent solicitor in New Zealand during the 1840's. Dr. Phil Parkinson says:
  
  'He appears to have been at the Bay of Islands in 1838. The situation in which he came to prominence was as defence counsel for Maketu during his trial for murder in 1842 (Hodder to Littlewood, 14 September 1992 in the Littlewood file at Archives New Zealand, 4/1/189).'
  
  
• Dr. Phil Parkinson of the National Library, arguably New Zealand's leading handwriting expert for early New Zealand historical documents, has positively identified the handwriting on the Littlewood document as that of James Busby, British Resident. Dr. Parkinson wrote the following to me, on 24/12/03:
  
  For several years I have been investigating the provenance and handwriting of official documents relating to the period 1830 to 1845, as well as missionary correspondence of that period....When I was shown it [the Littlewood Treaty], in September 2000, it was at once evident to me (as I told Christel McClare of Archives New Zealand, at the time) that the Littlewood document was in the handwriting of James Busby.
  
  
• Of the 12 surviving "rough draft" notes leading to the final English draft for the Treaty and written up between the 1st and 3rd of February 1840, the vast majority are in the hand of James Busby. He was acting as Hobson's secretary in the drafting of the treaty and worked at his residence ashore, while Hobson recuperated from illness aboard HMS Herald. Busby took his developing draft to Hobson on the 3rd of February 1840 and during the 3rd and 4th the "final draft" was penned by Busby under Hobson's direction. This final draft became known as the "missing draft". Historian Claudia Orange states:
  
  'The original draft in English, on which Henry Williams based this Maori translation, has not been found'. See her Treaty website at: http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/gallery/treaty-sigs/wai-tangi.htm
  
  
• An interesting idiosyncrasy of James Busby's writing is found in the way he had alternate spellings for the word Sovereignty/ Sovreignty. This uncertainty as to the correct spelling is found in the 12 pages of "rough draft" notes, as well as within Busby's hand-written text on the Littlewood Treaty document.
  
  
• It is very obvious, by a close scrutiny of the 12 surviving pages of "rough draft" notes (held in the National Archives) that there is not one body of text, sufficiently complete, to be called a "final draft". Head Wesleyan Missionary, Reverend Henry Williams and his son Edward Marsh Williams, were not the "legislators" of the Treaty, only the "translators". It was the responsibility of the legislators to provide a final, finished draft, stating in clear paragraphs of organised text their Treaty proposal. For a founding document of this importance the legislators owed that much to the translators. Although the 3rd of February rough draft "Articles" are "fleshed out" there are, clearly, no chosen and finalised "Preamble" or "Consent and Signing" sections attached. There are only several varying choices of what the Preamble and Consent can be and these are full of confusing deletions. It is very evident that a further, final draft would need to have been provided for the translators. Photo originals of each of the 12 "rough draft" pages on my website (about 3/4ths the way through the Littlewood Treaty article) at: http://www.celticnz.co.nz/The%20Littlewood%20Treaty.htm
  
  
• Lieutenant Governor, William Hobson went to Reverend Henry Williams on the 4th of February 1840 and personally handed him the final English draft at 4 p.m., asking him to have it translated into the Maori language before the meeting with the chiefs on the following day (See The Treaty of Waitangi, by T.L. Buick, pg. 113). The Littlewood Treaty document is dated the 4th of February 1840. It, accordingly, cannot be a "back-translation" of the Maori text, as it existed before the Maori version was created. It is the mother document of the Maori version.
  
  
• The Littlewood Treaty is, by far, the closest matching text to the Maori version. There is excellent word weight, sentence by sentence between these two texts. The order of statements is also excellent and, with exception to the expected nuances in language or peculiarities of sentence construction, in which parts of speech are correctly assembled for each language, each clause mirrors its companion clause perfectly in meaning within the other language. The 3rd of February 1840 English rough draft is, by comparison, a radical departure away from the Maori text in the choice of words or the order in which sentences appear. The 3rd of February English text has very translatable words like: Ireland, Australia, Forests, Fisheries, etc., in it, which do not appear in the Maori text. It also omits to mention, "and all the people of New Zealand"...ki nga tangata katoa o Nu Tirani, which is a very important legal statement in the Maori text.
  
  
• Reverend Henry Williams was the Head of the Church Missionary Society (Wesleyan) Mission. He displayed the personality of a very hard working stalwart, who was particularly thorough. He had been in New Zealand for 17-years when he and his son Edward undertook the translation of the Treaty. Edward Marsh Williams, who had been raised amongst the Maoris, was considered to be a scholar, par excellence, in the Nga-Puhi dialect (See The Treaty of Waitangi, by T.L. Buick, pg. 113). It would appear to be impossible that such adept linguists could have created the Treaty of Waitangi Maori text from the 3rd of February draft, as the two versions, in alternative languages, are so dissimilar in meaning or sentence weight and construction. Added to that is the, already mentioned, problem related to which English Preamble or Consent, from the several and varied "rough draft" choices, was the correct one to use.
  
  
• Although the Littlewood Treaty, in Busby's handwriting, was missing until 1989, we have, in fact, had access to two further copies of this exact version since February 1840. This same text was copied out by James Reddy Clendon and placed into a diplomatic pouch on the 20th of February 1840. Thereafter, it was despatched, along with a printed Maori copy of the Treaty of Waitangi (done on the Paihia Mission Press, 17/2/1840), along with a copy of the Proclamation read to the settlers at Kororeka Church, to the Secretary of State in Washington D.C (despatch No. 6). James Reddy Clendon also wrote up another copy of, what later became known as, the "Littlewood version" text for himself and this remains amongst his papers at the Auckland Public Library. Government Historian, Ian Wards, stated that James R. Clendon was one of the participants in the final drafting of the Treaty of Waitangi:
  
  'A Treaty, soon to be known as the Treaty of Waitangi, was prepared with the co-operation of Busby, JR. Clendon and two missionaries, H. Williams and A. Brown' (see Shadow of the Land, by Ian Wards, Wellington, 1968, pg. 42). Government Historian, Ian Wards lists one of his sources as, J. Rutherford, The Treaty of Waitangi.
  
  
• This being the case, Clendon would have, without doubt, known the exact wording of the final English draft on the 4th of February 1840 and, as Acting U.S. Consul, would have taken a copy for future despatch to the Secretary of State on the 4th of February 1840. The participation of James R. Clendon in the treaty drafting process makes a great deal of sense when one considers that he aided James Busby and Reverend Henry Williams in the finalisation of the 1835 Declaration of Independence for the Confederation of United Chiefs. The 1835 document bears his signature.
  
  
• Dr. Phil Parkinson expresses the point of view that it was the Littlewood Treaty document that was read out, by William Hobson, to the assembled crowd at Waitangi on the 5th of February 1840. Inasmuch as the same procedure occurred again on the 6th, the Littlewood Treaty text was heard by the crowd on two consecutive days. Dr. Parkinson writes:
  
  'So where does the Littlewood text fit in to this? We know from Colenso's account of the proceedings at Waitangi, that on the 5th Hobson read out a text of the Treaty in English and that this was translated phrase by phrase by Williams. Some of the bystanders objected that Williams' translation did not fairly represent what Hobson had said. Although nothing can be proven I think that what Hobson read was not the "Her most gracious Majesty . . ." text (which has a rather stiff and formal preamble) but rather the simpler and less formal Littlewood one "Her Majesty Victoria . . ." which in tone addresses the British listeners, rather than the Maori. Hence the Littlewood text says " . . . seeing that many of her majesty's subjects have already settled in the country and are constantly arriving, And that it is desirable for their protection as well as protection of the natives to establish a form of government among them." Some people have made much of the absence of the words 'lands and estates, forests and fisheries and other properties' in the Littlewood document. However, the expressions it uses "The Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the chiefs and tribes and to all the people of New Zealand the possession of their lands, dwellings and all their property . . ." is just as effective, only less wordy than that in the official English text; the point is that all property is confirmed, of whatever kind, so it is unnecessary to go into details about forests, fisheries, mineral rights or anything else (Letter to Martin Doutré, 24/12/03).

What happened at Waitangi is that Reverend Henry Williams acted as the translator for Hobson's general discourse. During a late interval of the proceedings, one member of the public objected that Williams was not conveying exactly what Hobson was saying. The accusation was recanted when a challenged was made to point out the specific inadequacies in William's translation. This dispute arose much later in the meeting, during the general debate between the chiefs and the English dignitaries. When it came to the actual "treaty texts" in English and Maori, these were read word for word to the crowd from two prepared documents, with Hobson reading a sentence or paragraph and then Williams reading its equivalent in Maori. The Treaty reading interval was early in the proceedings and there was no dispute from any member of the public concerning one text not conveying the exact meaning of the other.

Our historians, unfortunately, find themselves in the very difficult position of trying to salvage whatever credibility they can, given their past public comments regarding interpretations of the Treaty. I personally feel that Dr. Parkinson, by his above commentary, is placing himself in a safe middle ground or netherworld between understandings of the past 30-years and what is emerging as the real truth now. Others like, Claudia Orange, Paul Moon or Kerry Howe don't seem to know what to do, so abstain from addressing the Littlewood Treaty issue altogether. Although they're getting plenty of media attention at present, they are utterly silent about the Littlewood Treaty and refuse to be drawn into this debate. Historians like Orange, Moon and Howe, with their high public profiles, have been tremendous, bankable assets to the "grievance industry" for many years.

Activists and the grievance industry use what is known as, the Waikato Heads-Manukau Treaty as justification for accepting the 3rd of February draft as the "official" English version of the Treaty. They refer to this as, "The English version as signed".

What they and our historians fail to mention is that it was the full, "official" Maori text that was presented to the chiefs in both locations. Reverend Robert Maunsell, a senior missionary and subordinate only to Rev. Henry Williams, was obliged to proceed with his meeting before 1500 Maoris on the 11th of April 1840, without access to an "officially" issued document signed off by the government". The document he was supposed to use didn't arrive with Deputy Surveyor, William C. Symonds until 3-days after Maunsell's meeting.

For his meeting Maunsell had to come up with his own documents at very short notice. He had, on hand, one of William Colenso's printed treaty texts (made on the Paihia Press on the 17th of February 1840). He also had a wrongly transcribed copy of the treaty in English, based upon Busby's rough notes of the 3rd of February. Apparently the final draft had disappeared already, and some clerk had referred to the rough notes and made this English copy. How and from where Reverend Maunsell acquired this document, I do not presently know.

Robert Maunsell presented the correct Maori text on the day, and this printed Maori copy he read from was later used for signing until there was no room left at the bottom or the page to receive more signatures. Thereafter, the signatures overflowed onto the defective English document. We know these weren't government issued documents and if one wishes to see what Reverend Maunsell was supposed to use (the "officially issued" document brought 3-days too late by William Symonds), see the Kawhia Treaty, later used by Reverend John Whiteley of Kawhia Mission. Maunsell's printed text is held by the National Archives and displayed as a signed treaty document.

Hobson later signed off Maunsell's "make-do" documents (two sheets used as one) in May, when they arrived at Paihia, in acknowledgement of the wishes of the Port Waikato and some Manukau chiefs to cede sovereignty to the Queen. Hobson knew that the meetings, where these "make-do" documents were used, had been fully conducted in Maori, using the authorised Maori text. By the time Hobson signed this set of signatures off he had suffered his debilitating stroke and his signature shows that he was severely impaired. All official treaty documents that he pre-signed in February, for taking around the country to the chiefs, were in a steady hand, before his paralysing stroke in Auckland on March 1st 1840. For further documentation on what happened at Waikato Heads and Manukau, see my website.

• There was only ever one Treaty of Waitangi compact or contract and that is the document in the Maori text. The Littlewood Treaty was Busby's final draft, used to create the Treaty of Waitangi and it locks the Maori text to specific meanings. Hobson was astute enough to realise that it was unreasonable to expect the chiefs to sign a document in a foreign language, so no English texts of the Treaty were ever sent out by the government for the signing assemblies. Most Maori at the time couldn't read Maori, let alone English. Propositions were conveyed by oratory and the signatory chiefs were being called upon to place a mark of agreement in support of the proposition they had heard and understood in their own tongue. They were called upon to agree to and sign off the same written words as they had heard in an oral delivery. Here are some quotes on this:
  
  Sir James Henare, the last surviving member of the Council of the Chiefs of Ngapuhi of the Treaty of Waitangi recounted, in 1987, oral history about the Waitangi proceedings and later hui discussion: 'Captain Hobson arrived on the 5th at the Treaty grounds and read the clauses of the Treaty or the articles of the Treaty and suggested to the chiefs that they could have ample time, a week, to consider the Treaty and it was the Maori version that was given to them to consider' (see Hobson...Governor of New Zealand 1840-1842, by Paul Moon, pp 104-105).
  
  'The instruction of Captain Hobson was, "not to allow any one to sign the treaty till he fully understood it;" to which instruction I did most strictly attend. I explained the treaty clause by clause at the signing of the same, and again to all the natives in this part of the island previously to the destruction of Kororareka, on March 11, 1845; I maintained the faith of the treaty and the integrity of the British Government, and that the word of Her Majesty was sacred, and could not be violated.
  That the natives to whom I explained the treaty understood the nature of the same, there can be no doubt; ..."* (Volume II of "The Life of HENRY WILLIAMS, Archdeacon of Waimate," by Hugh Carleton, published 1877 by Wilson & Horton, Auckland).
  
  Hobson later wrote these words to Governor Gipps of N.S.W., Australia, on the 25th of April, 1840, 'The treaty, which forms the basis of my proceedings, was signed at Waitangi, on 6th February, 1840, by 52 chiefs, 26 of whom were of the Confederation, and formed a majority of those who signed the Declaration of Independence [1835]. This instrument I consider to be de facto the treaty, and all the signatures that are subsequently obtained are merely testimonials of adherence to the terms of the original document' (see The Treaty of Waitangi, by T.L Buick, pg. 162).
  
  
• Whatever the words tino Rangitiratanga, taonga, etc., can be construed, by modern exploitative interpretations, to mean, they, nonetheless, apply with absolute equality to "all the people of New Zealand". The Treaty of Waitangi, in Maori or English, speaks of everyone's "customary rights". There is no "partnership" being offered. Everybody becomes a British subject, subservient to British laws or the recipient of British civilisation benefits, and all ceded territories become British soil under the jurisdiction of Queen Victoria.
  
  Martin Doutré.