Paul Moon & the 'Littlewood Treaty'


Predictably, Paul Moon, in typical cowardly fashion, reverts to his standard statement of:

"..the so-called ‘Littlewood Treaty’ is not a treaty at all (simply by virtue of the fact that there are no signatures on it by the relevant parties."

But of course it was never intended to be signed by the chiefs, as it was never more than the Final English Draft and mother-document from which Te Tiriti o Waitangi was translated. This fact we have constantly reinforced in any correspondence with Paul Moon or his cohorts-in-denial. The term or title “Littlewood Treaty” was first coined by mainstream government historians themselves around September 1992. It’s their original title for the document and that name has stuck, in the public mind, ever since.

But for Paul Moon, his "..the so-called ‘Littlewood Treaty’ is not a treaty at all” red-herring is the only available escape-route he can retreat to, in order to evade the issue and not have to argue the actual historical merits and pedigree of the Littlewood document. Some people are suckered-in by this well-rehearsed, automated-response, diversionary-tactic. It’s designed to create a momentary lapse in concentration, stupor of thought or confusion by an opponent, allowing Paul or his grievance-industry colleagues to hurriedly scurry away unmolested, rather than stand and fight and get slaughtered.

Moon goes on to say:
“At be(s)t, it is either a draft of the Treaty’s text, or a subsequent copy. There is no absolute proof about when it was written, but around early February 1840 is a reasonable guess”.

Again, Moon shows himself up to be deliberately-forgetful, obtuse or contradictory in his analysis.
Here’s what he wrote in an email in 2004:
‘I agree that the Littlewood document is dated 4 February 1840, and that there was almost certainly no subsequent drafting of the Treaty’s English text’ (See excerpt from Dr. Paul Moon’s letter to treaty researcher, Ross Baker, 30/08/2004 and posted onto the O.N.Z.F. website).

Yes indeed, the Littlewood document is very clearly dated 4th February 1840, the same day as the Final English draft is known to have been written and handed to Reverend Henry Williams at 4pm in the afternoon that day. Here’s what Reverend Henry Williams wrote in his memoirs:

“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).

So, why is Moon in such a determined state of denial about when the document was written? Clearly, it was penned on the 4th February 1840 and thereby fulfils essential criteria of the Final English draft and mother document from which Te Tiriti o Waitangi was translated.

A basic rule one follows when analysing dates on historical documents is that the date is correct, unless strong, secondary evidence shows it to be wrong. Grievance-industry social-historians do all in their power to cast doubt upon the clearly written date on the Littlewood document, as the consequences of accepting that date are counter-productive to their reinvented-treaty scam. Both the Littlewood document and Te Tiriti guarantee equal rights to all New Zealanders, much to the chagrin of the grievance-industry. In their view the Littlewood document is simply not allowed to be the Final English draft and they will fight tooth and nail to make sure it gets no such recognition.

For over 150-years before the Littlewood document came to public attention in 1992, we had been looking for a piece of old paper with the following attributes:

* It had to say exactly what Te Tiriti O Waitangi said and be set out in the same way. Sentences and words had to mirror each other in perfect reflection. There had to be approximately the same "word weight" per sentence. The English text found had to look and sound, convincingly, like the mother document to Te Tiriti O Waitangi. That is: It had to have a Preamble, three Articles, Hobson's name and title, an Affirmation section for the signatory chiefs and the final date.

* That the Littlewood document qualifies admirably in complying with this perfect layout and content is beyond question.

* It had to be on paper that preceded the signing of the treaty in 1840 and that paper had to be identifiable as stock in use at the Bay of Islands in February 1840. If the paper was from an orphan stock, then that would cast doubt upon the authenticity of the document.

* Clendon's W. Tucker 1833 watermarked stock fulfils these necessary criteria admirably.

* The paper had to have a pedigree traceable back to one of the founding fathers who drafted the treaty and, ultimately to Busby and Hobson.

* The Littlewood document's pedigree is impeccable and fully traceable to Clendon, Busby and, in consideration of Clendon's "official”, consular request for Hobson to supply him with a “Copy & Translation” of the Treaty of Waitangi in both English & Maori, back to Hobson himself.

* The author of the hand-written text had to be James Busby, British Resident.

* That attribute of the Littlewood document is also beyond dispute.

* It had to bear the date, the 4th of February 1840, as that's the day the final English draft was written.

* It is clearly signed off, 4th Feb 1840.

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 ever would or could satisfy them?

Between 1840 and 1975 both Maori and European New Zealanders alike, as well as all other local ethnicities, knew that the Treaty of Waitangi was singularly and uniquely a document-text in the Maori language. Its all-encompassing, friendly guarantee of equality for all the people of New Zealand, altogether, was well-understood and indisputable.

However, beyond 1975 Marxist-Maori activists, their lawyers and in-the-pocket pseudo-historians converged upon the scene intent upon reinventing the treaty for their own greedy, self-serving purposes. The fortuitous, unexpected find of the “lost” Final English draft at Pukekohe in 1989, followed by knowledge of its existence being “leaked” to the public by a whistle-blower at Archives NZ in 1992, provided a unique opportunity to restore the original interpretation of the treaty which we had previously enjoyed for 135-years.

Despite the undeniably rich evidence that this was indeed the long sought-after Final English draft, our mainstream, politically-aligned historians chose to be moral-cowards, turn-a-blind-eye and not fulfil their duty to the New Zealand public. The whole argument concerning what the treaty truly says and means could have been cleared up definitively once Archives NZ came into possession of the Littlewood document in 1992.

Paul Moon has no solid arguments or documentation that can challenge the validity of the Littlewood document as the Final English draft, but, instead pulls out the race card to discredit opponents, tries to pull rank by flashing his credentials or makes pathetic emotional appeals for everyone to simply believe him because he works so hard (See Amateur Historians Should Lay Off The Treaty, by Paul Moon, Investigate Magazine, September 2004).

For a full, documented critique and rebuttal of the grievance-industry aligned, treaty-related arguments posed by social-historians like Moon, see:

By Martin Doutré, 22/10/2016