CANTABRIAN: Littlewood and the Treaty - How we are being taken to the cleaners

The controversy around the Waitangi Tribunal, the rapid growth of Maori attempts to exert authority over the government and country, and the question of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi omits one major and crucial element - The 'Littlewood Treaty'.

It has always been a source of debate that there are two official versions of the Treaty - Te Tiriti O Waitangi in Maori and the Treaty of Waitangi in English. There are significant differences between the two documents.  One of the functions of the Waitangi Tribunal is the exclusive authority to determine the meaning and effect of the Treaty as embodied in the 2 texts and to decide issues raised by the differences between them. (Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975, s 5 (2).)

The English version is a Formal Royal Style document written by Captain Hobson's secretary, James Freeman and based on several rough drafts by James Busby.  It is not the same as a translation of the Maori text.  In 1972 the historian Ruth Ross made a comparison of all five then-known English versions of the Treaty with the Maori text and conclude that "the Maori text was not a translation of any of these English versions, nor was any of the English versions a translation of the Maori text".

No final draft of the Treaty was known of until 1989.  Until that time the only known drafts were partial or heavily edited documents and none was dated after 3 February 1840.  In 1989 a document was found among the possessions of descendants of the late Henry Littlewood, solicitor for James Clendon the US Consul and police magistrate in the Bay of Islands, that almost exactly mirrored the Maori text.  In his 2005 book The Littlewood Treaty - The True English Text of The Treaty of Waitangi Found, [https://www.treatyofwaitangi.net.nz/TreatyBook/Precis.htm] author and researcher Martin Doutré explains the background to the Littlewood document and sets out a difficult-to-refute argument that it is the missing final draft signed by Hobson on the evening of 4 February, delivered to Henry and Edward Williams for translation into the Maori language.

It is unnecessary here to go into the history of the drafting of the Treaty.  However it is necessary to say a few words about what has occurred since the Littlewood document was found. Here is what Martin Doutré says:

Although the Littlewood Treaty is, without doubt, the final English draft of the Treaty of Waitangi and the document handed to Henry Williams for translation into the Maori language at 4 p.m. on the 4th of February 1840, that fact is still kept muted and shrouded in secrecy. When one passes by the glass cabinet of the darkened down Constitution Room at the National Archives, wherein the Littlewood Treaty document reposes face up, the tattered old piece of paper hardly rates more than a cursory glance. The second side of the Littlewood Treaty sheet, which bears the all-important date of its creation on the 4th of February 1840, lies face down and conveniently hidden out of sight, out of mind and out of harm's way. The manner in which the Littlewood Treaty is displayed keeps it, as well as any overly alert of historically informed treaty researcher in the dark.

(This was written 20 years ago. The Littlewood document appears to no longer be being displayed.)

In his book, Doutré details communications with and reactions from various archivists, researchers, historians and politicians.  From the way in which he describes the reluctance of the authorities to fully investigate the provenance of the Littlewood document, it is clear that there was - and undoubtedly still is - a concerted effort to hide or suppress that document.  It has been discounted by many as being a back-copy of the Treaty made some time after 6th February 1840.  Doutré explains how this is not an acceptable position.  He says:

[Amongst the draft notes held in Archives and the Auckland Museum] there is no single body of text... that could be defined as a 'final draft'. The document that has come to be known as the Littlewood Treaty is, singularly and uniquely, the only complete body of text incorporating a Preamble, Article I, II, III and Affirmation section, fitting all of the expected 'final English draft' criteria. Hobson and the other legislators who assisted him has an absolute obligation to supply the translators with a complete body of text, such that there would be no ambiguity or confusion related to what has to be translated and conveyed in the Maori tongue. The Littlewood document's text mirrors the Maori translation text perfectly throughout, in terms of the sequence of statements, word weight per sentence and the use of synonymous words in each language. Under the strictest criteria... the Littlewood Treaty fits the expected profile of the final English draft.

Doutré further notes that

In Article II of the Littlewood Treaty the rights spoken of and enshrined by treaty are guaranteed 'to the chiefs and tribes and to all the people of New Zealand'. This is exactly what the Maori Tiriti O Waitangi says:  'ki nga Rangitira ki nga hapu - ki nga tangata katoa o Nu Tirini'. The text, in both languages, guarantees equality for all the people of New Zealand, with no special customary rights set aside, exclusively, for any one ethnic group. ..., there is no provision of a partnership between Maori and the Crown ...

The Treaty of Waitangi version that is used in all of our legislation today is based upon a composite English text assembled by Hobson's secretary, James Freeman, from the early rough notes of the treaty. ... Freeman concocted a variety of 'Royal Style' versions earmarked solely for overseas despatch. For these he did not consult the final English draft, probably because it lacked the necessary pretentious language considered by him as befitting royalty or high stations within foreign governments. Our present day treaty legislation is, therefore, wholly based upon Busby's 3rd of February rough draft, wherein he forgot to mention the 'settler' or the rights of Ngati Wikitoria (the family of Queen Victoria). In terms of the true treaty wording, this oversight was fully corrected by Hobson, with the essential, missing phrase aided into the final draft of 4th February 1840.

There seems to have been considerable interest in the Littlewood document in the early 1990s, and reference to it appeared in an Archives New Zealand internal newsletter in 2000. It appears however that the political implications of the document were recognised early on.  This is understandable, as the acceptance of it would overturn the Treaty industry that has been developing since 1975.  A number of well-known Treaty historians downplayed Littlewood and were reluctant to make any public assessment.  For them to do so would need them to reject much of their work, at the risk of losing their credibility. During the Clark government, it was regarded as a matter for the Minister of Maori Affairs. In a letter of March 2005 the then-Minister dismissed the Littlewood document as a back-translation and stated that the Maori version 'would take precedence because it bests reflects the understanding of the Maori chiefs who signed it.' As with those academics and historians who have been pushing a particular line for nigh on 50 years, it could be expected that Maoridom would also actively suppress or reject the notion that 'their' treaty interpretation is incorrect.

In 2006 a rebuttal of Doutré's book was issued by Dr Donald Loveridge on behalf of the then Treaty of Waitangi Information Unit in the SSC.  [https://www.wgtn.ac.nz/stout-centre/research-and-publications2/research-units/towru/publications/The-Littlewood-Treaty.pdf] 

Doutré subsequently published a response to Loveridge in which he clearly and concisely defended his hypothesis. [https://www.treatyofwaitangi.net.nz/LoveridgeResponse/LoveridgeResponse.htm]

Neither of these documents is widely known today. 

Because there is no authoritative draft in the English language that shows what Hobson was wanting to achieve and what he instructed the Williams's to translate into Maori, the 'official' Maori version in the Treaty of Waitangi Act has been able to be interpreted by Maori activists with little challenge.  Words and phrases appear to have been (and are being) interpreted solely for the purpose of extending Maori demands.  Historians, academics and activists who have pursued the now-embedded mantra about what the Treaty did and how it should be applied are unlikely to voluntarily overturn their long-held beliefs.  The inconsistencies between the two 'official' versions of the Treaty and the ability of the Waitangi Tribunal to apply any interpretation it chooses to the meaning of the Treaty will never allow the present debates to be voluntarily resolved.

There is growing resentment and disquiet over increasing Maori power and influence, embodied in the notions espoused in He Puapua.  We are in the throws of a long, carefully managed programme to overturn our nation.  There must be a fully impartial and independent examination into the Littlewood Treaty and its implications. This can not be left to the Waitangi Tribunal or Ministry of Maori Development to adjudicate. Such inquiry needs to be made urgently, before it is too late to correct the direction the country is being pushed down by Maori and non-Maori activists. The implications of not doing so are dire, and the government model floated in He Puapua will be achieved.

One further aspect of the debate is the often repeated absence of chiefs' signatures on 'the English version' of the Treaty. This was because with one exception only the Maori version was presented by Hobson's emissaries for signature as they went around the country.  The exception was at Port Waikato where, because of delays in receipt of copies of the official version of the Treaty, Henry Maunsell utilised an informal document in English as an 'over-flow' page to collect signatures.

For those wishing to quickly discern the basis of Doutré’s argument and how that stands up to challenge, this is the recommended starting point [https://www.treatyofwaitangi.net.nz/LoveridgeResponse/LoveridgeResponse.htm]

(The author's name was supplied but is withheld at their request.)