Untitled Document

The “Littlewood Treaty”: An Appraisal of Texts and Interpretations, (Dated 1 May 2006).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A close reading of Reverend Richard Taylor's diary, for the same two days, shows that he virtually duplicated, in his separate forays around the bay, Hobson's selfsame circuit of those two days. Taylor's water-borne movements included visits to Hobson in the afternoon of the 3rd of February and Clendon at his home in the late afternoon of the 4th, before returning to his own home to prepare for the treaty assembly on the 5th.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BUSBY’S FINAL DRAFT …4th of February 1840

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

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

Article first

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

Article second

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

Article Third

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

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

WILKES’ DESPATCH 64 TREATY ... 3rd of April 1840.
Translation of the Treaty
Her Majesty Victoria, Queen of England in her gracious consideration for the chiefs and people of New Zealand and Her desire to preserve to them their lands and to maintain peace and order amongst them has been pleased to appoint an officer to treat with them for the cession of their ~~lands~~ country and the islands adjacent to the Queen seeing that many of Her Majesty’s subjects have already settled in this country and are constantly arriving and that it is desirable for the protection of the Natives to establish a Govt. amongst them.

Her Majesty has accordingly been pleased to appoint me William Hobson a Captain of the Royal Navy to be Governor of such parts of New Zealand as may now or hereafter be ceided to Her Majesty and proposes to the chiefs of the confederationof the United Tribes of New Zealand and the other chiefs to agree to the following articles

Article First

The chiefs of the confederation of the United Tribes and the other chiefs who have not joined the confederation cede to the Queen of England forever the entire Sovreignty of their country.

Article Second

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

Article Third

In return for the cession of the sovreignty to the Queen the people of New Zealand shall be protected by the Queen of England and the rights and privileges of British subjects will be granted to them.

Signed Wm Hobson
Consul and Lt Governor

Now the chiefs of the confederation of the United Tribes of New Zealand being assembled at Waitangi and we the other chiefs of New Zealand having understood the meaning of these articles, accept of them and agree to them all. In witness whereof our names or marks are affixed.

Done at Waitangi the sixth day of Febu in the year of our lord, one thousand eight hundred and forty.

Consulate of the US of America at the Bay of Islands N Zealand.April 3rd 1840.

It can be readily seen that Busby’s final draft wording of the 4th of February 1840 was made available to Commodore Charles Wilkes on the 3rd of April 1840. The subsequently copied transcript shows that Wilkes or his secretary (copying the despatches, or letters sent and received within the squadron, into the U.S.S. Vincennes’ letter book) has been a bit inattentive or hurried and has left out “of the Sovereignty” in the Preamble, or has abbreviated some words. Other than this, the general text is the same as Busby’s 4th of February final English draft of the Treaty.

It is beyond dispute that the Wilkes’ transcript was copied directly from Busby’s final draft, as the copyist has religiously tried to duplicate all of Busby’s mistakes or corrections, as found upon the Littlewood Treaty.

Where the somewhat inattentive copyist left out the word “Sovereignty” in the first instance, one can see he first put in ~~“land”~~, but didn’t fully rectify or recover from the mistake. The transcribing secretary has even copied Busby’s spelling mistake for “Sovreignty” on two occasions, leaving out the telltale “e” quite deliberately. The same holds true for the “crossed out” word ~~chiefs~~ where Busby had earlier written the wrong word into his final draft in Article II, then had to replace it with “Queen”. Wilkes or his secretary duplicated Busby’s mistake by crossing out ~~chiefs~~ and adding “Queen”. Even the mistake Busby had made in writing “ceded” as “ceided” was picked up by the copyist and recorded (See Papers of Charles Wilkes 1837-1847, U.S.S. Vincennes letter book duplicate of despatch Number 64, Microfilm 1262, University of Auckland Library pp. 142-145 & 163-168). The original Wilkes’ Papers are held at, The Kansas Historical Society, Topeka, Kansas, U.S.A., and the microfilm reproduction of them was made in 1953.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘In writing to me afterwards he expressed himself in the following words:- “I beg further to add that through your disinterested and unbiased advice, and to your personal exertions, I may chiefly ascribe the ready adherence of the chiefs and other natives to the Treaty of Waitangi, and I feel it but due to you to state that, without your aid in furthering the objects of the Commission with which I was charged by H.M. Government, I should have experienced much difficulty in reconciling the minds of the Natives, as well as the Europeans who have located themselves in these islands, to the changes I contemplated carrying into effect.” (See Appendix