Tainui $700M answers settlement skeptics

Tainui Annual Report 2013Last week Tainui Group Holdings reported total assets of $738million. This comes from wisely stewarding the $170million they received in their 1995 Treaty settlement, plus their share of the fisheries settlement. Their success in growing the tribe’s wealth is a resounding answer to those prone to skepticism or even cynicism about the Treaty settlement process.

Certainly the process isn’t perfect and there have been mistakes along the way. However the example of the two major iwi who settled early – Tainui and Ngai Tahu – has shown that new futures can be forged, where in the past injustice has prevailed.

The Tainui Group Holdings Annual Report tells a story of economic development, wealth creation and expanding employment and educational opportunities for the tribe’s 64,000 members. It begins with a vision statement which looks…

To lead Maori economic development, alongside other iwi-owned businesses, to benefit Maori and the whole community. To maximise wealth, provide long term returns and a consistent dividend to our Shareholder. We do this primarily through strategic acquisition, investment and development of property, and by investments in growth assets and fishing.”

Tainui are well on the way to achieving their goals. As they fulfill their vision we will all benefit.

Ewen McQueen
July 2013

This entry was posted in Economic Transformation, Treaty of Waitangi and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

32 Responses to Tainui $700M answers settlement skeptics

  1. Helen says:

    I hope this reply ends up under the right heading, Ewen. Many thanks for your reply and I’m sorry it went through on the submissions section. I’m still feeling my way around this site.

    I did find your reply very demoralising because it seems you are of a certain age and if you went through the education system within the past 30-40 years, you will have been brainwashed by revisionist historians as to our true history. Much of what you said is not factual with regard to our true history. Sadly our education system is short-changing our children and they are not learning our actual history.

    It would take quite a bit of time to apprise you of what is fact and what is fiction so can I suggest you read the excellent new book out called ‘Twisting the Treaty – a Tribal Grab for Wealth and Power’ published by Tross Publishing. It can also be obtained through bookshops. It was written by 6 authors and has verifiable irrefutable references throughout. It would put you on the right track as I feel you are a very intelligent person in spite of having incorrect information.

    I do hope you will take me up on my suggestion because it could be very humiliating for you if you continue with your current beliefs when you finally find out the actual truth.

  2. John Ansell says:

    Could you please explain how Tainui’s fourth full and final settlement of $170 million (now as you say worth $700 million) has benefited a single non-part-Maori New Zealander – or indeed the vast majority of part-Tainui.

    • Ewen McQueen says:

      Hi John
      I am sure you would commend (and see the wider economic benefits of) of any business or organisation wisely stewarding their resources and investing in projects in their local community. Why any different with Tainui ?
      Cheers
      Ewen

      • John Ansell says:

        You have not answered my question. How is the diversion of public money to one racial group of benefit to all – including to most of Tainui?

        And why do they deserve it, given that they are descendants of chiefs who threatened to kill every man, woman and child in Auckland, rose up against the Queen, and had already received three full and final settlements despite not having signed the Treaty?

  3. John Knight says:

    A little condescending on the part of Helen with all respect. The critics who look to the Littlewood Treaty to undermine the whole treaty settlement process totally don’t get the phrase “all the people of New Zealand”. They read it like it was in today’s context which of course would mean Maori, pakeha etc. in 1840 it’s unequivocally referring to Maori who were called “the New Zealanders” – a term for the indigenous Maori. In no way would the treaty writers have meant this to be a term encompassing Maori, pakeha, Chinese, Polynesian etc. etc. this fact alone shows me that the Littlewood Treaty is a bit of a red herring.

    • Helen says:

      Sorry John, but you are mistaken. Both the final English draft and the Maori version said – ‘The Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the chiefs and the tribes and to all the people of New Zealand, the possession of their lands, dwellings and all their property.’

      Now how do you work it out that ‘and all the people of New Zealand’ just refers to the Maori people when they had already said in the same sentence ‘the chiefs and the tribes’? You can’t have it both ways with the two different descriptions. It most definitely was referring to the rest of us when it said ‘all the people of New Zealand’.

      This is why the so-called ‘Littlewood’ Treaty is the final English draft and the one from which the Maori version was translated. They are both more or less identical as far as two different languages can be, unlike the earlier draft which is currently in legislation and which has caused so much trouble because of the confusing differences in it compared to the Maori version. The Littlewood Treaty is dated a day later than the English currently one in legislation so how can the latter be the true final draft?

      • John Knight says:

        Thank you Helen for your reply. It did make me look back over things with a closer eye and I have a few points for your consideration.
        A) the Littlewood “treaty” is almost identical to the Clendon copy sent back to the States with the unambiguous statement by Clendon that it was a TRANSLATION of the Maori.
        B). The “official” English version has much more complicated legal terms which Henry Williams has rightly and cleverly distilled down to much more understandable and readable terms in the Maori version – and so of course a back translation is going to look like the “long lost final draft”. Think for a minute. It makes perfect sense. We would not expect the Maori version to be a complete word for word copy of the more complicated, legal looking English text. we would expect a Treaty in Maori that has simplified legal terms to fit a language with a smaller vocab. Then a back translation (which is what the Littlewood and Clendon documents are) would then more logically be almost word for word according to the Maori.
        C) the 4th Feb dating at the bottom of the “Littlewood Treaty” is not a game changer. It is simply that when Busby was writing out this translation (say about 10 days later) he was acknowledging the fact that Henry W wrote the Maori version on the night of the 4th with his son, ready to be given to the chiefs the next day.

      • John Knight says:

        Helen – https://www.victoria.ac.nz/stout-centre/research-units/towru/publications/Littlewood-Treaty.pdf. Have a read of this. He makes the points I have been talking about including the clincher for me that either Busby or Williams (who were alive and kicking for a good while ie 30 years or so – after the signing) that either of those guys could have corrected the understanding of the correct English text. If it really was the littlewood one they would have corrected the misunderstanding. This proves to me that the “official” English text we have to today is what Henry Williams used to make his Maori version. It still makes far more logical sense in my mind to see the Maori version as a simplified version of the slightly more complicated “official” English text which has a more legal document feel around it. Some of the sentence construction is wordy – no wonder Henry simplified it down a bit. Good pragmatism in my mind. He was a man that knew how to communicate.

        With regards to “All the people of New Zealand” we need to read the treaty in the context of whom it was written to – to the Maori. It was addressed to the Maori. It’s not a treaty for the English settlers – they were already under the queen’s sovereignty.

  4. Helen says:

    John, the English copy was not a back translation of the Maori version. Just think about it for a moment. An Englishman would write the Treaty in English first and then translate it into Maori. That makes much more sense than the other way around.

    As for the copy sent to the US, there were a number of copies made in the Royal style – to make it sound a bit more flowery for want of a better word, and impress those who received it. They all differed slightly and are not exactly the same as the Maori version. There is only one version that matters in law and that is the Maori version as that is the one signed and understood by the Maori Chiefs and later ratified at the Kohimarama Conference in 1860 where nearly all the Chiefs again confirmed that they were all under Queen Victoria. This proves they knew perfectly well what they were signing.

    If you want to know what the Maori version said, you just have to refer to the so-called ‘Littlewood’ Treaty because they mirror each other, unlike the current earlier draft in legislation, which includes the words Forests and Fisheries and omits ‘and all the people of New Zealand’. This was changed in the final draft (Littlewood) and the Maori version is exactly the same as the final draft.

    To re-confirm what I said about ‘and all the people of New Zealand’ including everyone, as each Chief signed the Treaty he said in Maori ‘we are now one people’, meaning EVERYONE was one under Queen Victoria.

    I do hope this is helpful. However, please don’t take my word for it. Can I suggest as I did to Ewen that you read ‘Twisting the Treaty – a Tribal Grab for Wealth and Power’. It is published by Tross Publishing and available in bookshops, is excellent and will give you the true history of this country, unlike the reinvented history currently being taught in schools and universities.

    • John Ansell says:

      I suggest the genuinely curious also read Ian Wishart’s The Great Divide, to me an even more convincing book than Twisting The Treaty.

      • John Knight says:

        I’m actually grateful for the interchange as it has caused me to examine more closely the four pertinent texts of the treaty. The official English text (the much fuller and more legal feeling document with lots of therofs etc..), the Maori text which is really the key one which was signed, the Littlewood back translation (you should google Victoria university and plug Littlewood into the search engine if that link doesn’t work) and the Hugh Kawharau back translation.

        Whichever text you read the fact is that the Maori were promised things which were not carried through and which we are rightly redressing. The Littlewood text (which is much closer to the Maori text being the translation of the Maori text as clendon states ) if anything provides a bigger path to drive a bus through. It is the more explicit and descriptive English official text which in my mind ties things down a bit. What does taonga mean? What does lands mean? It is a far wider term which can include forests, fisheries etc… I would say holding onto the Littlewood text as the text doesn’t help the anti Maori gravy train brigade – it rather pours petrol on your fire. I don’t see myself as been brainwashed by revisionists – on the contrary it is the Littlewood side that is trying to revise history. You still haven’t tried to answer my clincher – why did not Henry W or Busby write about the English text actually being the Littlewood text because both those guys wrote extensively in the 30 years after. If they thought it was an issue they would have raised it. In fact their silence in the subject is the history.

  5. Helen says:

    John, the link didn’t come through so I haven’t been able to read it. However, how can you say that the ‘official’ English version we have today is what was used to make the Maori text, when in the ‘official’ English version they mention ‘Forests and Fisheries’ but omit it from the Maori version, and omit ‘and all the people of New Zealand’ in the ‘official’ English one but put it in the Maori text. The ‘final’ draft is the same as the Maori version in both of these instances and is dated a day later than the ‘official’ English version. Your comments just don’t make sense and I can’t accept them – sorry. The ‘Littlewood’ final draft is definitely the document from which the Maori version was translated as it fits whichever way you look at it. You can twist and turn the facts forever but this is indisputable. The ‘official’ English version just doesn’t fit.

    Please read Twisting the Treaty. You have been listening to the revisionist historians. They are twisting the true facts.

    Yes, the Treaty was to bring the Maori people under British law but they were to be equal under the law with the rest of the New Zealanders and this is why ‘all the people of New Zealand’ were also included in the wording – to confirm this and stating that all their property, dwellings and land were also. Don’t forget the settlers had been buying property and building houses.

    • John Ansell says:

      Helen, you are explaining the facts very clearly for those with open minds and a desire to hear them

      You might want to answer the point about Clendon saying the Littlewood document was a translation. I was asking that question one stage too, but Martin Doutre provided a most plausible explanation. I forget it for the moment, but you probably remember.

  6. Helen says:

    Thanks for your support, John A. Yes, Ian Wishart’s The Great Divide is an excellent book and thoroughly recommended.

    John K, you mentioned Clendon above and Martin Doutre has researched in depth and written on this. I copy his comments below –

    For a full explanation just go to: http://www.treatyofwaitangi.net.nz/LoveridgeResponse/LoveridgeResponse.htm

    If you then go to the midpoint of the article you’ll find how I answer this in my rebuttal of Dr. Donald Loveridge.
    Loveridge commences with:
    ‘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.

    I then respond with documented evidence. Note: I’ve upgraded this long article recently to make it more user-friendly.

    Also you might like to look at the very last section of my response where I include a statement by Dr. Phil Parkinson who (in the Archives NZ website) is quoted as saying:
    ‘However, Phil Parkinson at the National Library, who has perused the document and file recently, believes that the document is in Busby’s holograph and that the Littlewood copy proves that Clendon’s ‘unofficial translation’ is a transcript of Busby’s draft of 4 February except that the date was given as the 6th rather than the 4th. He believes that Busby provided his draft to Clendon and this resulted in that text being sent to the USA in Clendon’s despatch and in the Wilkes copy with Clendon retaining the draft.’ Red emphasis added.

    Please read my take on just how significant this statement is, as it can only mean Parkinson has “caved in” and is now prepared to accept the truth.

    PS. The above is in my website at: http://www.treatyofwaitangi.net.nz/index.html … go to the bottom of the homepage and buttons will take you to the full online book, etc.

    John K, that is really all I have to say on the correct final English draft otherwise Ewen will be getting annoyed at the length of this discussion. You either want to know the truth or you don’t. It’s all out there so it’s up to you.

  7. Helen says:

    John K – I will put it very simply for you. There was the Maori version of the Treaty which is the only one that matters. Everything else is irrelevant. However, if you can’t speak Maori and want to know what it says, you have the choice of the ‘official’ English text, or the ‘Littlewood’ text. The ‘official’ English text has the words ‘Forests and Fisheries’ in it which the Maori version DOES NOT and nor does the ‘Littlewood Treaty’. It also omits ‘and all New Zealanders’ which both the Maori version and the ‘Littlewood’ version DO HAVE.

    There is absolutely no logic in trying to say the ‘official’ English version is the final draft, because it doesn’t gel with the Maori version in these two very important aspects and is dated a day earlier than the ‘Littlewood’ version which gels absolutely with the Maori version. Also, the Treaty was transcribed into Maori from the final English draft, not the other way around. With respect your analysis is full of holes and just doesn’t stack up.

    ‘Taonga’ at the time of the Treaty meant ‘property procured by the spear’. You certainly couldn’t procure by the spear what is being claimed today!! Their ‘property’ at that time, was very meagre.

  8. Helen says:

    I forgot to mention, John K, that I have given you the link above from Martin Doutre which will debunk everything that Victoria University came up with. It’s the people in the educational institutes who are driving all the supression and rewriting of our true history. Anything from Victoria University and other educational establishments going back 30-40 years, should immediately be suspect. Our children are growing up not knowing our true history but I’m certainly informing mine. To gain knowledge of the true facts you need to delve way back in history much closer to the times.

    • John Knight says:

      I think in many respects we would both be in agreement as to opposing the Maori gravy train getting too greedy and adding things that were never part of the original intent. That is why I am in agreement with Ewen’s article “one sun in the sky”. I’m just a bit bemused that you think I’m getting influenced by revisionists. In my mind you are the one getting influenced by the revisionists – the writers wanting to elevate the Littlewood believing that it puts a clamp on the scope of things that Maori can claim.

      i also note that you have not really responded to my main critiques of the Littlewood argument. When you place the Littlewood document alongside Clendon’s text which he sent back to the states they are almost identical and Clendon states that it was a translation. In Clendon’s own words. Within a couple of weeks. How much further back can you get. Granted the date on the Littlewood document is 4th feb but that can be explained if Busby wrote his translation out on that night – the same night that Williams was writing out the Maori version from the “official” English text.

      Also you are not correct in saying that the original official text does not mention “all the New Zealanders”. In article 2 it says “and to the respective families and individuals thereof”.

      I’m also trying to think here why it’s so important that you have the Littlewood and not the official English version. They both say the same thing. Article 1 – cede sovereignty. Article 2 – keep control of your land and property Article 3 – have the rights of British citizens. Simple. Both the Littlewood and the Official say that. As I commented before, if anything the Littlewood would allow Maori to claim even more.

  9. Helen says:

    John, I really don’t know where to begin. Your comments are just so illogical. How can you say Busby wrote his translation out on the same night that Williams was writing out the Maori version from the ‘official’ English text? Busby wrote the Treaty and then gave it to Williams to transcribe into Maori. If the Maori text and the ‘official’ English text were transcriptions of each other they would have been the same instead of the ‘official’ English text having words not in the Maori text and omitting words that were in the Maori text.

    The reason it’s important to have the correct English one in legislation is because of these omissions and additions. It’s also not correct to say they say the same thing when the ‘official’ English one says ‘confirms and guarantees to the Chiefs and Tribes of New Zealand and to the respective families and individuals thereof’ because it would more likely be deemed they are just referring to the Chiefs and Tribes and their families, not the rest of the people of New Zealand. It certainly wasn’t clear and that’s probably why it was changed the next day ‘and to all the people of New Zealand’ in both the ‘Littlewood’ text followed by the translation into Maori.

    It’s also extremely important because in the ‘official’ English text Forests and Fisheries are mentioned but they are not in the ‘Littlewood’ or ‘Maori’ texts and billions of our tax dollars have been spent on this false statement.

    Clendon was stating that he had attached a translation to the Maori text so the recipients could read what the Maori text said seeing they wouldn’t have spoken the language. That’s all it was. What Clendon did was irrelevant to the problems the ‘official’ English text and Geoffery Palmer’s invented Principles of recent years are causing – and costing – billions.

    You are quite wrong in saying that elevating the Littlewood Treaty puts a clamp on the scope of what Maori can claim, because the Maori version is the same as the Littlewood Treaty and the Maori one is the only one that matters, so it in itself must also put a clamp on the scope of what they can claim. With respect, I’m amazed you can’t see how futile your argument is and how important it is that the Maori Treaty is the one adhered to. The only use of the ‘Littlewood’ Treaty is for people like myself who don’t speak Maori. It tells us what the Maori one said because it was so obviously translated from the ‘Littlewood’ one and included the two important corrections made to the latter. They are both identical in content, unlike the ‘official’ English one which differs in those two very important aspects.

    However, we do agree on one thing – almost, and that is that Maori have got very greedy and are definitely claiming what the Treaty never said, courtesy of Geoffery Palmer’s invented Principles of the Treaty put into legislation in 1986 and the ‘official’ English version.

    I hope I have now answered all your questions. Let us just agree on one point and that is that the Maori Treaty is the only one that matters in law, and not the ‘official’ English version. That negates all the current claims. They are fraudulent.

    • John Knight says:

      Evening Helen – probably time to draw this to a close as if anything as i go over documents again I see my own position more clearly by the minute as being the logical one. I really encourage you to read with open eyes the article by Dr Donald Loveridge written in 2006 which responds to Doutre’s propositions. The critical thing is this statement by Clendon. here is an excerpt from Loveridges paper:

      “Appended to this English text, however, was a note by Clendon: Memo: This Translation is from the Native Document and not a Copy of the Official Document in English from which the Native one is made, and although the words may be different from what they were in the Original I think the sense is much the same;– but on the return of Capt. Hobson from the Southward I shall apply officially to him for a Copy and translation of the Treaty for the purpose of sending it to the Government of the United States. [signed] James R Clendon U.S. Consul. 27 [emphasis added]”

      This statement by Clendon puts the Littlewood text in the same box – A BACK TRANSLATION.

      The actual issue is probably to answer the question if the Maori text is the important one (to which we are agreeing) what does it say? It says land. What was on the land? Probably mainly forests!

      If I was Maori and my possession of my land was promised in article 2 I would look out at my land and see my forest on it and think “cool Kuini Vic is letting me keep my forests”.

      We should not begrudge the Maori their land and what is on it. Land to them means way more than title and deed of property that is most Europeans attitude. The way they see land is something I don’t understand really but I guess I am coming to appreciate it in a new way.

      I’m with you in the sense that dual sovereignty and partnership is a silly road to travel down but at the same time there is a chance here to really listen to the heartbeat of Maori. Regards.

      • Helen says:

        Yes, John, we must agree to differ. This is my last comment on it all. Where in the Maori version which is the only one that matters in law are Forests and Fisheries mentioned? Where in the ‘official’ English one is ‘and all the people of New Zealand’ mentioned? Where also is partnership mentioned? We must remember that from 1806 until well into the 1840’s there were the continuous musket wars with Maori marauding up and down the country fighting each other and taking land off others. Might was right and the strong ones dispossessed the weaker more peaceful tribes, hence the desire of so many tribes to come under British rule. Many have now claimed and been repaid for land they stole off others.

        I can’t quite see how Clendon comes into the argument however as the only Treaty that is lawful is the Maori one. That’s what they understood and signed. It’s just a shame the earlier ‘official’ English draft differs in two crucial respects and that, along with the recently invented Principles, is causing fraudulent claims to be made today.

        Thank you for listening to me.

  10. G. Graham says:

    Hi John Knight

    You strike me as a genuine truth seeker so I’ll help you out with your question, “which translation was Rev Henry Williams referring to when he signed with the statement ‘as close as the idiom of language will allow”.

    The only official authorisation Williams had was to translate Hobson’s final English draft (Littlewood) of the 4th of Feb. into Maori, there was no need for him to back translate to English as he held the English document in his hand.

    No English copy or translation exists in Williams’ hand

    Dispatch: James Stuart Freeman presented the documents for dispatch to Williams of which on top lay Freemans copy of Hobson’s draft of 3rd of Feb., under which he drew a line and under this Williams was invited to sign.

    All copies of the 3rd of February draft are in Freeman’s hand, not Williams’.

    Only the Maori text is in Williams’ hand.

    Freeman was Hobson’s secretary, palmed off by Governor Sir George Gipps of NSW, Australia. He was authorised by Hobson to copy Hobson’s final English draft of the 4th of Feb. but chose the one written on the 3rd of Feb. in error and though he made several copies stretching over 6 months all were different and none were the same as the document he copied from, demonstrating how inept he was, see despatch above.

    You will find it interesting to note that none of the back translations of the time mimic the small changes in Hobson’s final English draft, making this draft and the copies taken from it by James Reddy Clendon, U.S. Consul & U.S. Commodore Charles Wilks (who also copied the errors) stand out alone, these copies alone being enough to authenticate the wording of Hobson’s final English draft due to the care taken to produce them since he also waited for Clendon to place the genuine 4th of Feb. draft in his hand for copying.

    Wilks was so particular he commissioned U.S. Captain Gordon Brown to arrange an independent back translation of the Maori text to compare against the 4th of Feb. draft and was satisfied with the result.

    A popular guise of the politically correct is to dispute the 4th of Feb date, claiming it is in error, but have as yet to provide hard evidence of an alternative.

    Since Martin Doutre wrote his book “The Littlewood Treaty, the true English text of the Treaty of Waitangi found” in 2005, no Government historian (including Dame Claudia Orange) or private historian hired by Government (including Dr. Donald Loveridge) or any M.P. have been able to produce as little as one point of evidence to diminish the findings of this book, research of which was done by Ross Baker (Chairman and researcher of onenzfoundation.co.nz), Allan Titford and Martin.

    Another most important point is that Freeman’s copy of the 3rd, which Governments claim as an authentic English Treaty of Waitangi, states “Done at Waitangi on 06-02-1840”; wasn’t written until March and was produced, unauthorised, in the Waikato by Rev. Maunsell to catch the overspill of signatures during April 1840..

    Wrong date/time equals illegal Treaty. Why do Government historians claim the genuine article of the 4th of Feb. is wrongly dated, without proof, yet ignore Freeman’s. Could it be that if Freeman’s 3rd of Feb draft copy was disclosed for the fraud it is it would also affect that founded upon it such as the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975, the Waitangi Tribunal, the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1985 and the Principles of the Treaty and everything they stand for, i.e. Maori settlements and privileges?

    G. Graham

  11. John Knight says:

    Hi Graham

    Happy to unearth truth but the more I look into the claims of the Littlewood brigade, the more clearly I see that it is definitely just a back translation. I believe you are looking at the treaty through 21st century glasses mainly because you are putting great store on the phrase in the 2nd article “all the people of New Zealand “. To the people of that era the Maori were called the New Zealanders. The 3rd article talks about protection and clearly differentiates between the people of England (the british subjects) and the people of New Zealand. Why offer protection to the British subjects when they already had it? The offer of protection and citizenship rights were to the people of New Zealand – to the people who at that point of time did not have it, ie the Maori.

    Secondly the date of Feb 4 on the Littlewood draft works because Henry W was translating the “royal text” which Freeman gave to him on the 4th. And we have in Henry’s own words that he translated it the best as the idiom of language would allow. This statement only makes sense if the English draft he translated into Maori was in fact substantially more word and flowery – exactly what we see in the “royal text”. So if Henry is doing this on the 4th (FACT) and busby was there helping (FACT) then isn’t it natural to see that busby would date his draft as 4th feb too. I can see a conversation go something like this.
    Henry: man you guys sure know how to make something complicated! You lawyers are all the same – this language is far too complicated. The Maori don’t even have words for a lot of those words. I’ll have a crack at a Maori text that will capture the heart of it all
    Busby: hang on a minute Henry – if you’re going to do that we better write down what you’ve come up with in English so that we can at least check you are getting it right.
    Henry: sure James – no problem. Got some paper with Clendon I can use? Run out of my stock!

    Anyway that’s how I see it

    • Helen says:

      Wrong again, John McK. I argued this with you previously but you don’t seem to have taken it on board. There is one little word (AND) which throws your theory completely out the window.

      Article second says – ……confirms and guarantees to the chiefs & tribes (this will surely be all the Maori people) AND (!!!) to all the people of New Zealand etc etc.

      How can the Maori people be included in the ‘chiefs & tribes’ and also in the ‘people of New Zealand’? That would just be repeating something and totally unnecessary.

      Don’t forget they were violent and very dangerous times so it is completely natural to include the Maori people and all the people of New Zealand together in this statement. That was what the Treaty was for – to bring everyone together under British Rule – one people!! This statement confirmed that.

      However, as I’ve said in the past, the Maori Treaty is the only one that matters so I don’t know why this conversation is continuing. Anyone who hasn’t been indoctrinated by the revisionist historians or hasn’t closed his/her mind, can see what is real and what isn’t. The Littlewood Treaty is most definitely the final draft. It mirrors the Maori version but its only use today is to read it so as to know what the Maori version said – for those like me who can’t speak Maori and have no intention of learning it.

    • G. Graham says:

      Hi John Knight.
      You wrote, “Happy to unearth truth but the more I look into the claims of the Littlewood brigade, the more clearly I see that it is definitely just a back translation.”

      You ignored what I wrote, “Since Martin Doutre wrote his book “The Littlewood Treaty, the true English text of the Treaty of Waitangi found” in 2005, no Government historian (including Dame Claudia Orange) or private historian hired by Government (including Dr. Donald Loveridge) or any M.P. have been able to produce as little as one point of evidence to diminish the findings of this book, research of which was done by Ross Baker (Chairman and researcher of onenzfoundation.co.nz), Allan Titford and Martin.”

      In your text above you wrote words of personal opinion without hard evidence to back them up, same as Government historians did (see above paragraph).

      That known as the Littlewood Treaty, or to use its correct name “Lieut. Gvnr. Hobson’s 4th of Feb. official, final, English draft” remains standing proud. Should you disagree, log on to Martin Doutre at http://www.treatyofwaitangi.net.nz and you will see for yourself why all of the professionals have failed over the past 8 years since Martin published hard evidence in greater depth than any other, what he referrers to as, “Puppet Historian”. As all of the above failed to condemn Hobson’s final English draft, Martin has proven there is no exclusive Maori privilege in the Maori Treaty of Waitangi.

      Fact! Queen Victoria did not have the power nor authority to grant Maoris any exclusive privilege denied to her own British subjects under the jurisdiction of the Magna Carta and English law and this was the criteria which was accepted internationally.

      I note your silence on the hard evidence I produced to condemn the false English Treaty and all it supported, namely the Treaty of Waitangi Acts 1975 & 1985, the Waitangi Tribunal, the Principles of the Treaty and all the foregoing stands for; i.e. settlements and privileges.

      Few have heard of a document held so quietly since 1840, our true founding document. I refer to Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter of the 16th Nov. 1840. As the Treaty laid to rest the Maori Declaration of Sovereignty so the Royal Charter lay to rest the Treaty of Waitangi. Once signed it was a done deal with no further use.

      All the Treaty did was to bring all NZ citizens under the British flag, annexed to Australia, no more no less. It was the Royal Charter that separated us from Australia, made us an independent British colony in our own right, replaced Governor Gipps with Gvnr Hobson, gave us our own constitution, English law and our own flag.

      • John Knight says:

        Dear Mr Graham. I’m sure there is a law out there which states that the weaker one’s argument the more ad hominem attack there is.

        Some points for you to counter because neither you nor Helen have been able to:
        1. Why did Clendon call his one a translation (noting that the Clendon “treaty” sent back to the states is essentially IDENTICAL to the Littlewood “treaty”)
        2. Why did Henry W say that his (Maori) text was as good as idiom would allow (noting that this comment only makes sense if the English text he used was substantially more complex and verbose – which is what we see in the “royal” text)
        3. Where did you guys get the idea that the term “New Zealanders” was not exclusive to Maori in 1840.
        4. If the wrong English text was used why on earth did Henry W or James B not correct the mistake. If anyone could’ve those two could’ve.

        Actually Mr Graham your comment and obvious strongly held belief that there is no Maori privilege in the Treaty staggers and saddens me.

        I will look into this Royal Charter that you mention as I had not heard of that. Other than that over and out.

      • G. Graham says:

        Hi John Knight,

        1. There was only one official translation and that was the Maori Treaty. Hobson’s final English draft of 4th Feb., written by Busby under Hobson’s direction. Busby was a Scotsman who was not proficient in the Maori language, he would be unable to translate from Maori and if he was he would have translated the Maori Treaty, not Williams. The translation referred to was the Maori Treaty and as the Maori Treaty is “as close as the idiom of language will allow” this cements the fact.

        Furthermore: Not one back translation mimics the small differences that are inherent in the 4th Feb Final draft but both of the copies taken from it do, especially Wilks who even copied the errors verbatim. These certified copies further authenticate the 4th of Feb draft found in possession of the direct descendants of Clendon’s lawyer, Henry Littlewood, is the real deal.

        2. You said, “the English text he used was substantially more complex and verbose – which is what we see in the “royal” text”.

        As you admit, Freeman’s flowery royal text could not be considered even similar to the Maori Treaty and is therefore “not as close as the idiom of language will allow”. Being in the hand of Freeman strikes it out as being what the Maori Treaty was translated from, take away the flowery language and all of the foregoing would still apply. Only Busby was authorised to write the “final English draft of 4th Feb. on the 4th of Feb.” under Hobson’s direction.

        3. You said, “Where did you guys get the idea that the term “New Zealanders” was not exclusive to Maori in 1840”.

        It seems you cannot read Maori or you would know the answer to this, so I’ll help you.

        The second law (Law [ture] in the Maori text, not articles) states, “the chiefs the hapus and all the people of New Zealand the full possession of their lands, their settlements and all their property. Why would Maoris be repeated twice?

        “all the people of New Zealand” clearly defines what is meant in the 2nd law as does “all the Maoris of New Zealand in the third law.

        It stands to reason that if Hobson’s intent was for the second law to be exclusive to Maoris he would have made this as clear as he did do in the third law.

        The reason was to protect the interest of the settlers who owned 2/3rds of New Zealand when the Treaty was signed, bought mostly in Australia under English law, remainder under Maori law where Maoris held the sway.

        This I explained earlier, Freeman presented his bundled despatch to Williams with Freeman’s 3rd of Feb draft on top, he drew a line across the bottom and invited Williams to sign there.

        The translation he was referring to in this despatch has Freeman’s statement written on the top left corner, “/ copy of Treaty of Waitangi /” (with a slash at each end) and this is written on a copy of Williams printed Maori translation (pg. 25 of vol. G-30/1)

        Answering all of your questions, would you mind responding to my statement regarding the false English Treaty and the Queen’s Royal Charter. See below.

        Fact! Queen Victoria did not have the power nor authority to grant Maoris any exclusive privilege denied to her own British subjects under the jurisdiction of the Magna Carta & English law and this was the criteria which was accepted internationally.

        I note your silence on the hard evidence I produced to condemn the false English Treaty and all it supported, namely the Treaty of Waitangi Acts 1975 & 1985, the Waitangi Tribunal, the Principles of the Treaty and all the foregoing stands for; i.e. settlements and privileges. I’ve responded to you in full, would you please extend the courtesy of reply.

        The false English Treaty states “Done at Waitangi on 06-02-1840, was written in March and signed, unauthorised, in the Waikato in April 1840. All legal documents must bear a true place/date of signing, the false English treaty does not. Please respond?

        Fact: Queen Victoria did not have the power nor authority to grant any exclusive privilege to Maoris that was not already available to her own people under English law and the Magna Carta. Can you prove otherwise?

        Few have heard of a document held so quietly since 1840, our true founding document. I refer to Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter of the 16th Nov. 1840.

        As the Treaty laid to rest the Maori Declaration of Sovereignty so the Royal Charter lay to rest the Treaty of Waitangi. Once signed it was a done deal of no further use.

        All the Treaty did was to bring all NZ citizens under the British flag & annexed it to Australia under Governor Gipps, no more no less. It was the Royal Charter that separated us from Australia, made us an independent British colony in our own right, replaced Governor Gipps with Gvnr Hobson, gave us our own Legislative Council, constitution, English law, our own flag & our true founding document.

      • John Knight says:

        Hi G Graham

        So …
        1. You still have not explained Clendon’s comment that the copy of the text of the treaty of Waitangi which he sent (and which essentially Identical to the Littlewood) was a translation. I got that off Doutre’s website. He has put the two side by side.

        2. I don’t think you understand what idiom means. The Littlewood draft/ the Clendon dispatch – these are all very close a literal, word for word transcription of the Maori words used by Henry. I guess in your mind that clinches that the Littlewood was the final draft. In my mind it is the exact opposite. You had an original English draft (the flowery, so called “royal” text) which needed translating into Maori. The Maori vocab at the time prob didn’t even have some of the words used so that is why Henry had to translate it into something simpler and “as good as idiom allows”. Then it would have been a natural process to back translate it into English and of course Clendon confirms this. It all makes perfectly logical sense to me.

        3. You say “only Busby was authorised to write….” Do you have a reference for that?

        4. “New Zealanders”. I think we need to read all three (official royal/ Maori/ Littlewood) to get the understanding here. You are right in that I cannot read Maori but I can see in the Maori text a dash after chiefs and hapu (in the second article) so it can be read ” to the chiefs, the hapus – ie all the New Zealanders”. No big problem in my book. That lines up with how the official text runs with ” respective families…” Anyway I have direct hard evidence from William Williams that it was the Maori who were called the New Zealanders in his book Christianity among the New Zealanders.

        5. In my mind you have belittled Freeman somewhat and painted him as somewhat of a dilbrain in putting his Royal text on the top to be signed off. This in my mind was no oversight by some office idiot – he was doing the most natural obvious thing – putting forward the English text used to make the Maori Treaty. In my mind this is a key fact that the Littlewood Revisionists have really struggled to explain because it actually can’t be explained away.

        So now to your request to answer your points

        6. Your expression “false English treaty” is pretty loaded and your own opinion. There are nine copies of the treaty that were signed – 8 in Maori. This English one may well have been written in March ( I’m still getting up to speed with the paper trail here) but it is still a correct copy of the one used by Hobson at Waitangi. ( I note here in anticipation that youll say that it was the littlewood draft read out but in fact we actually dont know – ps i got that from mr doutre’s website). So I don’t have a problem with it being used in 1975 to set up what we now have as the guiding principles for the way ahead on this one.

        7. I’m trying to understand your comment about the power and authority Queen Victoria had to grant exclusive privilege. Also the Royal Charter is something I am currently investigating.

      • G. Graham says:

        Hi John Knight,

        1. You said, “You still have not explained Clendon’s comment that the copy of the text of the treaty of Waitangi which he sent (and which essentially Identical to the Littlewood) was a translation. I got that off Doutre’s website. He has put the two side by side.”

        Martin Doutre’s whole book was dedicated to publishing hard documented evidence that the 4th of Feb. 1840 final English draft was exactly that.

        I did and gave this answer, “The translation William’s (not Clendon) was referring to in this despatch has Freeman’s statement written on the top left corner, “/ copy of Treaty of Waitangi /” (with a slash at each end) and this is “written on a copy of Williams printed Maori translation” (pg. 25 of vol. G-30/1) within the despatch you refer to.

        It is common knowledge the Maori Treaty was the translation, as proven above. 200 copies of the Maori Treaty were made, no English translation or Treaty was printed or paraded around our country to all signatories.

        2. In order to prove Busby’s incomplete 3rd of Feb draft was translated “you” would need to produce one. Easily done as Maoris did have words for “forest and fish”.
        You will also be aware Hobson & Busby produced a number of drafts (nine I think), the last one on the 4th of Feb; all previous to the 4th., including that of the 3rd, condemned and passed over.

        You would also need to produce evidence Hobson authorised an English Treaty, I already gave evidence he did not (above and repeated below) and none were printed nor read out at meetings.

        I did make one error, It was Hobson who gave the 4th Feb draft to Clendon, not Busby and Clendon waited for Hobson to return before confirming the final English draft was that of the 4th to his superiors in the U.S.A.. It was therefore confirmed it was Hobson’s final English draft

        I also stated that with or without the flowery language Freeman’s copy of March would still be easily recognisable as it is so different from the Maori Treaty.

        In all your reasoning you are ignoring the dates 3rd of Feb. of Busby’s incomplete draft and 4th of Feb. Hobson’s final draft, written by Busby (Hobson’s stroke curtailed his writing).

        In all the years Hobson’s 4th of Feb. 1840 draft has been in Archives NZ only the facing page has been shown, if anyone could prove what you believe is correct a copy of the underside might be shown because there would be nothing to hide. I know someone who has asked for a photocopy to be shown of the underside and was told, “It is too delicate to disturb”. What could go wrong considering it’s sealed in a plastic wrap? Could it be because of the inclusion of “all the people of New Zealand” in the second Article & date 4th of Feb. is a problem?

        3. You ask, “You say “only Busby was authorised to write….” Do you have a reference for that?
        I believe Hobson entered all proceedings since arrival in his ships log and Archives historians have volunteered it was penned by Busby.

        4. You wrote, “New Zealanders”. I think we need to read all three (official royal/ Maori/ Littlewood) to get the understanding here.”

        Only the Maori Treaty has Hobson’s authorisation, the other two were drafts and irrelevant.
        Littlewood Treaty is incorrect. It was a Govt employee who named it such, no English Treaty has Hobson’s approval and “you should refer to it as the 4th of Feb draft”. It states so quite clearly.

        You wrote, “Anyway I have direct hard evidence from William Williams that it was the Maori who were called the New Zealanders in his book Christianity among the New Zealanders.

        You are changing the subject to a different scene.

        If the 2nd law was intended exclusively for Maoris Hobson would have approved the same
        as written in the 3rd law, “all the Maoris of New Zealand”. Clearly he did not when he wrote “all the people of New Zealand” in the 2nd law. There is no argument here as the language is defined.

        This above is irrelevant as the 2nd law was only explaining to Maori that they would have the same rights as the people of England to “their” lands, “their” settlements and “their” property. Queen Victoria did not have the authority to give Maori special rights in the Treaty not already enjoyed by the people of England and spelt this out very clearly in Article 3. “The Queen of England will protect all the Maoris of New Zealand. All the rights will be given to them the same as her doing for the people of England”. Definitely no mention of special rights to Maori here!

        5. You wrote, “In my mind you have belittled Freeman somewhat and painted him as somewhat of a dilbrain”

        What other name would you give to a 3rd class clerk, who was asked to copy Busby’s 4th of Feb draft but copied the 3rd of Feb, made 7 or 9 copies (can’t remember) of which all differed and none as much as slightly resembled the sheet he copied from. He was even stupid enough to add content out of his own head on to a “supposed” legal document!

        I did not belittle him, he did so himself. I only related “his facts”.

        6. Your expression “false English treaty” is pretty loaded and your own opinion.

        In all of this post I’ve had to repeat myself and I’m wondering if you have actually read what I wrote earlier, how can you believe this is “my opinion” when I related Hobson’s statement to you? You are the one placing opinion against my facts.

        Below copied from earlier post.
        Governor Hobson stated in writing that we have only one Tiriti! 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 Federation, 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 that original document.” Only the Maori Treaty was signed on this day.

        It is now up to you to provide hard evidence that the English Treaty, produced unauthorised as a piece of paper on which to catch the overspill of signatures, which states “Done at Waitangi on 06-02-1840, wasn’t written until March and was signed in the Waikato in April 1840 is a valid document “in it’s own right”.

        According to Hobson’s statement above the signatures upon the English document pertain to the Maori Treaty, leaving “itself an unsigned document”. To be legal “in itself” it would need to be officially authorised & state its true place and date of signing, otherwise it is a false document.

        All of the above is irrelevant, see below.

        England has never had any racial law. it is now up to you to prove Queen Elizabeth had the power and Authority above the Magna Carta and English law to grant Maoris any exclusive right to the detriment of her own people. If you cannot do this you are at a dead end.

  12. Hi John,
    You provide a list of four questions that you require be answered. One hopes that you want these to be based upon documented historical evidence, as opposed to the more usual undocumented suppositions and wishful thinking of grievance-industry aligned historians and professional rent-a-prick debunkers.

    You ask:

    1. ‘Why did Clendon call his one a translation (noting that the Clendon “treaty” sent back to the states is essentially IDENTICAL to the Littlewood “treaty”).’

    Clendon, in his accompanying appended note (forwarded with Despatch No.6 and dated 20th February 1840 to U.S Secretary of State, John Forsyth), stated a whole lot more than the selective morsel of text that you (or Donald Loveridge) wish to pluck out in support your very weak case.

    Clendon stated in full:

    ‘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).

    Clendon had waited until the 17th of February, 1840 for the “official” Maori language text of Te Tiriti o Waitangi to be printed on the CMS Mission press and, seemingly, took possession of that Maori language text on that same day.

    On the 17th of February 1840, in the presence of government officials, he witnessed the treaty signature of his friend, Pomare II, whose PA sat adjacent to Clendon’s estate.

    U.S. Consul, Clendon now had almost everything he needed to make up a full despatch to send to the U.S. Secretary of State, but could not, in all confidence state categorically that he was sending the word-perfect, final or “official” English text to the Treaty of Waitangi. All he had in his possession was a stage of the “final draft” that he had, himself, transcribed directly from Busby’s draft on the 4th of February 1840.

    That particular draft, although fully agreed upon by Hobson and Busby as the text they wished to have translated into the Maori language, still had to undergo critical scrutiny by Reverend Williams as to its suitability for translation and was still, very much, subject to change.

    It was still only a “work in progress” when Clendon last saw it, before it was taken across the harbour by Hobson to the CMS Mission station where Williams awaited its arrival.

    Williams stated:

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

    In fact, the next morning, under Busby’s direction, one change was made to the Maori text that Williams had translated and, further to that, an incident at the assembly, involving Bishop Pompallier, looked like it was going to lead to the addition of a 4th Article to the Treaty of Waitangi.

    When Clendon stated his opening line to U.S. Secretary of State, John Forsyth, he was 100% precise … what he was sending was NOT the physical document from which Te Tiriti was made.

    However, it could be deemed to represent a very fair English “translation” of the printed Maori text that Clendon was sending in the Despatch No. 6 enclosure, the term “translation” being used only in the context of identifying for the American authorities what the Maori language text said in English line-by-line.

    Clendon, who had conducted daily business transactions with Maori, over the past decade, would have been able to see immediately that one language text was a perfect rendition or mirror “translation” of the other.

    But now we get to the part in Clendon’s cautionary disclaimer that both Donald Loveridge and you deliberately evade and omit to mention.

    The definitive information or intelligence that Clendon lacked at that moment, concerning what constituted the finalised, word-perfect English text of the treaty, Clendon promised he would gain from Hobson via an official consular request:

    ‘… 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.’

    Clendon was as good as his word and did exactly that. Hobson returned from the Waitemata harbour on the 6th of March and the “final English draft”, which Hobson carried on his person, was given to Clendon as requested.

    Clendon could now see, for the first time, that the final draft written by Busby on the 4th of February 1840 had remained the same as that which Clendon had directly transcribed and had not been altered by Reverend Williams, or due to Pompallier’s interjection during the treaty assembly.

    In accordance with Clendon’s official request, Reverend Henry Williams, in his capacity as “translator” also provided American consul Clendon with a beautifully hand-written copy of the treaty in the Maori language.

    Clendon now had the official “copy and translation” he’d requested, for which he issued a receipt to the Colonial Secretary, Willoughby Shortland, acknowledging fulfilment of the New Zealand Government’s diplomatic obligation to the United States Government.

    Concerning this documented chronology of historical events, the following, appearing on the Archives New Zealand website, is attributed to Dr. Phil Parkinson:

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

    Yes indeed, only about two weeks later, when visiting American Captain Charles Wilkes asked U.S. Consul Clendon for the official treaty documents, he was supplied with Busby’s final English draft (the so-called Littlewood document), as well as printed Maori texts from the CMS Mission press, etc.

    There is absolutely no doubt that Wilkes received the same piece of paper that treaty historians nowadays refer to as the “Littlewood document”, as Wilkes religiously copied the spelling mistakes or crossed-out words found on that document (relocated at Pukekohe in 1989).

    In your second question you ask:

    2. ‘Why did Henry W say that his (Maori) text was as good as idiom would allow (noting that this comment only makes sense if the English text he used was substantially more complex and verbose – which is what we see in the “royal” text)’

    Again, you fail to provide the full quote and also make a misattribution, as the written quote comes from the pen of James Stuart Freeman, who wrote:

    ‘I certify that the above is as Literal a translation of the Treaty of Waitangi as the idiom of the Language will admit of’.

    On February 20th-21st 1840, when Freeman put together a large overseas despatch enclosure consisting of many documents, he asked Reverend Williams to certify his Maori TRANSLATION.

    Freeman therefore wrote the phrase in a business section devoted to recent happenings and had Reverend Williams sign it.

    You are very correct, however, in stating that Williams was verifying the accuracy of his Maori language TRANSLATION and nothing else.

    I did a brief stint as a translator for an American historical society many years ago and, from time-to-time, still do translations of some sizable documents.

    I can tell you from direct experience that there is no way in Hades that Reverend Henry Williams or his “scholar par excellence in the Ngapuhi dialect” son, Edward could have possibly taken any one of the variable “Formal Royal Style” versions of the Treaty of Waitangi and come up with Te Tiriti o Waitangi text … an absolute impossibility and absurd to even suggest.

    Historian Ruth Ross noted this glaringly apparent and undeniable fact in 1972, when she wrote:

    ‘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’.

    In fact, Ruth Ross went into great detail on this point, calling the many English Formal Royal Style versions “composites”.

    Not only are whole concepts out of sync between the Formal Royal Style texts and the Maori “translation”, but there are a huge number of translatable words or phrases that never made it into Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

    For example:

    Favour, United Kingdom, Ireland, Australia, Europe, extension, May be supposed to exercise or to possess, absolutely and without reservation, Pre-emption, disposed to alienate, Forests, Fisheries, Assembled in congress at Victoria, etc.

    Added to that, all leading treaty historians know and readily admit that the real “Final English draft” was “lost” sometime in February 1840 (March actually, when it was given to Clendon).

    Loveridge and Orange concur on this:

    ‘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.’

    But these many Formal Royal Style versions (of which there are actually 7 … all different) have always been with us and were never “lost”. The wording in all of them can be traced to the early rough draft notes, created up to the 3rd of February 1840, and they have no known content that is directly traceable to the Final English Draft of the 4th of February 1840.

    That’s why Ruth Ross called them “composites” … selective bits and pieces from the obsolete and superseded rough draft notes (a veritable “patchwork quilt”). They were only ever intended to be memorial documents in pretentious, high-falutin language solely for overseas despatch. Freeman seemed to enjoy making them, so churned out a lot in 1840.

    In your third question you ask:

    3. Where did you guys get the idea that the term “New Zealanders” was not exclusive to Maori in 1840.

    In the years leading up to and including 1840, the term the “New Zealanders” was certainly used when referring to the Maori inhabitants of this country. However, the term, the “New Zealanders” does not occur anywhere in the Treaty of Waitangi English text, either in the Formal Royal Style composite or the Final English draft.

    The final draft uses the term, “all the people of New Zealand” in Article II and means exactly that … the chiefs, the tribes, individual Maori and all the settlers … or, literally, “all the people of New Zealand”.

    In your fourth question you ask:

    4. ‘If the wrong English text was used why on earth did Henry W or James B not correct the mistake. If anyone could’ve those two could’ve.’

    Well, it wasn’t really much of an issue until 1975, when radicals pushed for an English version of the treaty to sit alongside Te Tiriti o Waitangi and be co-equal to it in the formulation of legislation. Up until that time, there’d only been one treaty text and it was in the Maori language.

    If anyone wished to know what exactly the treaty said in English through that 135-year interval, one could read the many translations available, or more especially the back-translation “officially” supplied under a New Zealand Government request to the Native Department in 1869.

    Knowing exactly what the treaty said or meant only got obscured after a “Formal Royal Style” version got very deliberately and deceptively added into our legislation in 1975, allowing self-serving activists and their lawyers to “reinvent” the treaty, due to the vast differences in the wording between the two texts.

    Hobson had stated clearly in 1840 that there was only one treaty of Waitangi text, and it was in the Maori language.

    That text guarantees absolute equality for all the people of New Zealand altogether, with no special or exclusive rights set aside for any particular faction within NZ society.

    • John Knight says:

      Hi Martin – appreciate the full response and stand corrected with some loose quotes and misappropriations.

      I see your train of thought to try and explain Clendon’s actions and i have seen the second half of the paragraph which you say i have ignored ……but Martin this first part is so unambiguous that anything he did afterwards is actually red herring.
      ‘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 …”

      With all respect I see such a rabid fixation on establishing that the phrase “all the people of New Zealand” somehow includes the settlers that a simple thing like Clendon’s comments here are missed or perhaps ignored. Clendon is referring to an English text which he has obviously seen. Otherwise how can he say that the ‘words may be different from what they were in the original’. He also is aware that were quite a few versions of this royal text around (the composites as Ruth Ross defined them) and so that is why he is going to ask for the correct and official COPY. So in my understanding that second half of Clendon’s comment which you are saying that we are ignoring is Clendon asking for copy (the correct and official English text) and translation ( a verified copy of the Maori “translation”).

      So all this to say that the phrase “all the people of New Zealand” , must be read alongside the “official” Royal text/ composites and in those it is clear that it is not trying to include settlers at all but rather is simply an amplification/ umbrella type statement to make sure all Maori were included – all their “respective families and individuals thereof”

      Cheers

  13. Hi John,
    You state:
    ‘I see your train of thought to try and explain Clendon’s actions and i have seen the second half of the paragraph which you say i have ignored ……but Martin this first part is so unambiguous that anything he did afterwards is actually red herring.’

    No John, what Clendon did thereafter is, in fact, very well-documented New Zealand “history”!

    When Clendon was unsure what the final wording of the “Final English Draft” had settled-out to be, definitively, he put the necessary mechanisms into motion to gain that very important intelligence, which his superiors in Washington D.C. needed.

    The Americans operated a huge whaling industry in New Zealand waters and used the Bay of Islands’ harbour as their main port of call for reprovisioning and repair of their ships.

    Annexation of Northern New Zealand (Eastern and Western Ngapuhi regions) by the British Crown could bring with it drastic repercussions for the American whaling operations, due to the introduction of various port levies and custom duties or restrictions, etc.

    The British, under Queen Victoria, had just entered into a very politically-important “treaty”, describing terms, conditions and an outcome. The Americans needed to know the precise content of that document implicitly, and it was Clendon’s duty as the resident U.S. Consul to supply the correct intelligence, which is exactly what he did.

    For Clendon, this particular inter-governmental exchange, between the U.S. and N.Z., represented the single-most important diplomatic liaison he would be called upon to perform during his tenure of office as U.S. Consul.

    Clendon was “formally” presented with the “official” wording in English (the wording from which Te Tiriti was translated), which document was carried on Hobson’s person. This is the solitary English language document that Clendon had requested be supplied.

    As stated previously, he was also supplied with a beautifully hand-written Tiriti o Waitangi document, penned by Reverend Williams, which is still found amidst the Clendon House Papers at Auckland Public Library, Special Collections, to this very day.

    When American captain, Charles Wilkes asked for these self-same “official treaty documents” for his Despatch No. 64, Clendon had them on hand to pass to Wilkes for transcription.

    All in all, 4 copies of the “Final English Draft” exist, the earliest dating from the 4th of February 1840 (the day before the Maori tiriti existed), through to the 5th of April 1840 (the date Wilkes sent his despatch No. 64 to the United States, and recorded a duplicate in the U.S.S. Vincennes’ letter-book).

    You state:

    ‘ … I see such a rabid fixation on establishing that the phrase “all the people of New Zealand” somehow includes the settlers …’

    You are very definitely a victim of grievance-industry propaganda, concocted since 1975, in trundling-out this ever-ridiculous notion that, somehow, the treaty content is only for Maori and that the British or settler component is excluded.

    The British were in a very strong bargaining position and didn’t have to make any such nonsensical concessions in order to have a presence in New Zealand.

    Hobson arrived knowing full-well that Ngapuhi, at least, were going to sign the treaty.

    The fact of the matter is that the British did not want a New Zealand colony and had opposed the idea from the time of Cook’s first voyage, all the way up until 1837, when they very reluctantly found they had to finally entertain the idea.

    On microfilm at Auckland University Library I’ve read a British Government, inter-departmental letter, written in 1839, stating that:

    ‘Hobson is on his way to New Zealand to secure a treaty with the Maori chiefs. If he is unsuccessful we shall never try again’.

    Were it not for petitions from Maori chiefs and missionaries, as well as Hobson’s comprehensive 1837 report, coupled with French moves to form a colony and Australian Governor Sir George Gipps’ counter-moves to curtail that incentive, the British would never have formed a colony in New Zealand.

    In Hobson’s opening remarks to the Waitangi assembly on the 5th of February 1840 he reminded the chiefs that:

    ‘You yourselves have often asked the King of England to extend his protection unto you. Her Majesty now offers you that protection in this treaty’…‘But as the law of England gives no civil powers to Her Majesty out of her domain, her efforts to do you good will be futile unless you consent’
    (See The Treaty of Waitangi, by T.L. Buick, pg. 122).

    The British weren’t the least bit interested in anything less than a full cession of “Sovereignty” from the chiefs to Queen Victoria. Without that happening, the formation of a British colony was impossibility and the British delegation would have simply sailed for home.

    Hobson, at the Hokianga assembly, was encountering opposition from a particular chief and could detect that someone had been priming the chief with misinformation.
    Hobson, therefore, asked the chief to tell him who his advisor was and the chief pointed to a settler called Manning.

    Hobson’s letter-report states:

    ‘…he [Manning] had advised them [the chiefs] to resist, admitting at the same time that the laws of England were requisite to restrain and protect British subjects – but to British subjects alone should they be applicable. I asked him if he was aware that English laws can only be exercised on English soil? He replied ‘I am not aware, I am no lawyer’ – upon which I begged him to resume his seat, and told the chiefs that Mr. Manning had given them advice in utter ignorance of this most important fact.
    (See Hobson’s Letters and Despatches to Normanby and Gipps, 17th February 1840).

    Once the reluctant chiefs heard that the ground beneath their feet had to become English soil before they could have English laws, they pressed forward in droves to sign the treaty and cede their sovereignty.

    Celebrations, thereafter, endured past midnight.

    The “apartheid” version of a “British colony” that you (or Manning) are proposing is an impossibility.

    Moreover, Reverend Henry Williams, in his Maori translation, clearly states that the treaty was inclusive of all people living in New Zealand, Maori and settlers alike.

    • 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 Rangatira 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 Rangatira, ki nga hapu, ki nga tangata katoa o Nu Tirani’.

    In so doing he, very carefully, made the distinction to include Rangatira (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’.

    You further state in reference to Clendon:

    ‘He also is aware that were quite a few versions of this royal text around (the composites as Ruth Ross defined them) and so that is why he is going to ask for the correct and official COPY.’

    Clendon, as U.S. Consul, would not have been aware of any of the “Formal Royal Style composites” at this early stage (17th to 20th of February 1840) as the only one cobbled-together from the early rough draft notes by James Stuart Freeman, by this point, had already been sent to Australia, on the afternoon tide, aboard the Samuel Winter.

    Freeman was composing another, to be sent overseas aboard the Martha on the 21st.

    These Formal Royal Style memorial documents were only for dignitaries in foreign governments and never earmarked for circulation amongst the New Zealand. public.

    Freeman finally created one of these pretentious Formal Royal Style memorial documents for Clendon by about July 1840, which contained Freeman’s poetic Preamble rather than Hobson’s.

    However, all of that aside, there was only ever one treaty and it’s in the Maori language, as Hobson clearly stated when referring to the treaty text signed at Waitangi:

    Hobson stated:

    ‘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).

    All of this nonsense about multiple “versions” has been deliberately introduced by the grievance-industry, their in-the-pocket pseudo-historians and lawyers, solely to “confuse the issue” and “muddy the waters”.

    In such confused circumstances, “ignorance reigns supreme” and the grievance industry has been given carte-blanche to interpret and reinvent the treaty in any way it wishes.

    Essentially, the insame have taken over the asylum.

    Far from “honoring the treaty”, these activist louts have virtually destroyed its friendly, all-inclusive content, in their endless, self-serving pursuit of money and power.

    • Ewen McQueen says:

      Hi Martin and all the other contributors under this blog post.

      Thanks for all your contributions. I think we have now done enough on this debate so I am using my right of last reply. I won’t approve any further comments after this – although relevant debate under new blog posts is always welcome.

      I have read all your comments, and my view remains that the Littlewood version of the Treaty is of no consequence whether or not it is the final English version or not (which I doubt).

      The version signed by Maori (as translated back into English by Prof Sir Hugh Kawharau) is very clear that Maori were guaranteed their land and chieftainship. This does not create “special” rights or privileges. It simply assures them in terms they understood of what they would continue to enjoy. Like every other citizen their property rights and rights of political organisation (under the sovereignty of the Crown) would be protected.

      Most Treaty claims today are based on the fact this guarantee was not kept – land was unjustly confiscated or deviously alienated and chieftainship was undermined. Limited restitution is now being made and that is a very good thing.

      More specifically I want to address the matter of the phrase “all the people of New Zealand” in Article 2 of the Littlewood version of the Treaty. Much is made of this phrase. However I fail to see what relevance this has or what difference it makes.

      Yes the Maori version also talks in Article 2 about “all the people of New Zealand”. However it is absolutely clear from the context that this refers to Maori. They were the ones signing the Treaty. Article 2 is about what they were getting in return for giving up the right to govern to the Crown. The European settlers were not signing the Treaty and had no claim on governance in New Zealand. Hence it is illogical to suggest Article 2 had them in mind. The Crown right of pre-emption over the sale of land outlined in Article 2 certainly didn’t apply to European settlers. It only applied to Maori.

      William Williams (brother of Henry Williams) also wrote an account of the work of the CMS among Maori at this time. As John Knight has pointed out, the book was entitled “Christianity Among the New Zealanders”. This was a common term of reference for the wider Maori population in New Zealand at the time. New Zealand was essentially a Maori nation.

      Even if the phrase “all the people of New Zealand” was by some strange stretch of the imagination thought to have in mind everyone including the settlers – it changes nothing. Maori were still guaranteed property and political rights like everyone else. Those rights were in many cases abrogated. So now they are seeking and obtaining redress.

      I am not a fan of the concept of partnership or the principles of the Treaty which I consider modern inventions that have muddied the water (refer my Herald article – One Sun in the Sky). However I do not see any credible argument for using the Littlewood document as a reason for ignoring the genuine claims that the Treaty makes on the good faith of the Crown.

      Once again – thanks to all for your contributions.

      Kind regards
      Ewen McQueen

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s