Wednesday, January 24, 2024

Bruce Moon: Signing the Treaty of Waitangi - some of the true story

“I could a tale unfold, whose lightest word would harrow up thy soul” –Shakespeare, “Hamlet”, Act 1, Scene 5

There are nine sheets, seven on paper and two on parchment, possibly dogskin, on which chiefs’ signatures were placed when they “cede[d] to the Queen of England for ever the entire Soverignty of their country.”(1)  These are illustrated well on pp 225-7 of The Treaty and its Times(2) by Paul Moon and Peter Biggs, 2004, ISBN 0-908618-18-2.

Eight of these sheets are in the Ngapuhi dialect of Maori, including the original signed at Waitangi on 6 February 1840. Moon & Biggs’ ‘Sheet 4’, the only printed sheet,(3) was used by Missionary Maunsell at Waikato Heads in an emergency when Captain Symonds carrying an official copy of the text in Maori, as intended for all occasions, failed to arrive in time for the meeting of chiefs and others who had assembled there.

Five chiefs’ signatures were recorded at the bottom of this sheet which was countersigned by Maunsell. The ninth, anomalous, sheet in English (Moon & Biggs’ “Sheet 3”) was NOT, repeat NOT, an independent document but was used in this emergency by Maunsell for further signatures. The two sheets of this ONE document were then folded together by Maunsell, the printed sheet on top .

Maunsell’s diary which might have recounted this sequence was destroyed in a mission fire not long afterwards.

Some further signatures were gathered subsequently on the second sheet (the one in English).

This two-sheet document was duly returned to base at Russell, the sheets sealed together with ordinary sealing wax, the printed sheet in Maori on top; later torn apart, roughly pinned together; torn apart again by somebody unknown, to go their separate ways thereafter. Recent expert forensic examination initiated by Martin Doutré has established this sequence beyond any reasonable doubt. (Martin would surely confirm these critically important details.)

You will search in vain in official accounts and histories for this accurate account.

Fast forward to 1975 when the Treaty of Waitangi Act, sponsored by Matt Rata MP for Northern Maori was passed. In this very flawed piece of legislation the overflow sheet in English was legislated to be “the Treaty in English”. Nothing could be further from the truth. There is no such thing as the “Treaty in English”. This piece of paper is a rejected copy of one among eight concocted by Freeman to send to overseas dignitaries when he had been dismissed by Hobson from the real drafting duties. He had induced a stroke-stricken and bedridden Hobson to sign it, but Hobson’s signature was so weak that Freeman himself rejected it. Somehow it had got to Waikato Heads, probably with a consignment of stationery. Its wording departs significantly from that of the true treaty; thus it purportedly grants “forests and fisheries” to the tribes, not mentioned in the real treaty.

When the “Treaty2U” caravan travelled around NZ in 2006 at considerable expense to the taxpayer(4), a copy of the Freeman Fake with chiefs’ signatures was displayed but, Hobson’s weak signature had been erased and replaced by a more robust one. In other words, officialdom had tampered with a document to present false information to the people of New Zealand.. Officialdom indulged in a criminal act to misinform our citizens.

  1. In the words of Hobson’s final text in English of 4th February. The actual Treaty text in Maori, with the addition of the word “maori” in Article third, follows precisely.
  2. My copy is a complimentary one received personally from Biggs.
  3. 200 printed copies had been supplied to Hobson’s order by Mission printer, Colenso.
  4. The hire of the caravan alone cost $500,000
Bruce Moon is a retired computer pioneer who wrote "Real Treaty; False Treaty - The True Waitangi Story". This article was first published HERE


Anonymous said...

The printed Maori sheet, with "Freeman's Formal Royal style version" sitting behind it with the overflow of Maori chiefs signatures on it, were glued together with wax to become one document and Hobson added a waxen seal to render Maunsell's "make-do", Maori language treaty "official".

So who and/or what Government committed FRAUD and TREASON by tampering with and separating Maunsell's "make-do" Maori laungaue "official" treaty, and then using one part of this official document, created APARTHEID in New Zealand??

Anonymous said...

I am truly appreciative that there exist painstaking scrupulous intelligent scholars such as yourself Bruce. Thank you. But we have to accept that this means nothing to Te Pati Maori - and all the other hugely intellectually limited people who are shouting about te tiriti and how much they are owed by the colonists. They are ludicrously ignorant of their own history and culture - and don't want to know. They just want to bellow 'Grievance!" They are pathetic human beings, and I worry about the part this society plays in encouraging/allowing them to be so. Thank God Waitangi will be over in a couple of weeks - it means nothing to me but boredom.

Hazel Modisett said...

Everybody of my generation was taught in school that in return for ceding sovereignty to the Crown, Maori were granted equal rights & privileges. No Terms & Conditions & certainly no mention of "Co Governance". Considering we now live in a world where men can now legally claim to be women, regardless of the fact that their chromosomes deny this blatant lie, I am not surprised that all we know & hold dear is being infringed upon.
I fear a little boat ramp in the Nth may soon provide the spark, that lights the fire, that will burn all this nonsense to the ground.

Anonymous said...

I was asked to post this ..Feel free to do so and share it ,if you wish.
(My reply toTracy)

Of course I didn't write it ( Post put up from Ngapuhi Kaumatua)but agree whole heartedly.It needs to be shared. Im totally against Racisim and Apartheid. The Treaty was to give us all equal rights.As each Chief signed the Treaty Hobson uttered the words"he iwi tahi tatou"we are now 1 people .As you and others know it is not the case.96 ACTS (1975) giving special attention to one Culture out of 160 is not equality certainly does not make for a well balanced society. Totally understand the Two important words .RACISM and Apartheid. Their meanings Tracey.RACISM MEANS WHEN ONE CULTURE GETS TREATED DIFFERENTLY TO THE OTHER ETHNICITIES. That is Racisim. Apartheid = Segregation How does this apply to NZ.Good questions Segregation I think you know that .If not look to South Africa. Our Segregation begins with "Maori Party, Maori Schools, Maori Housing, Maori Health, Maori Courts, the list goes on.
Don't give me the old chestnut they were hard done by..Firstly all 160 ETHNICITIES in New Zealand had exactly the same opportunity not meaning to get generalized as many great New Zealanders came through excelled Sir Apirana Ngata, Sir Winston Peter's oh and many more..for All those mentioned above .It was not the system that let them down no it was their rebellious natures and no one again no one to blame than themselves. So no I still agree by choice but now they are forcing it Real Estate agents can't have their License unless they learn Te Reo now Tracey many other Industry impose these enforced conditions .No thanks Not right.

Anonymous said...

Thanks Bruce. So in summary;

Freeman had taken it upon himself to also forward over to Maunsell a ruined copy of one of his "Formal Royal Style" versions in English. Earmarked for overseas dispatch only, it had been ruined when Hobson had attempted a "left-handed" signature at the height of his stroke (between the 1st and 4th of March).

Later, the printed Maori sheet, with the Formal Royal style version (carrying the overflow of the Maori chiefs signatures) sitting behind it, were glued together with wax to become one document and Hobson added a waxen seal to render Maunsell's "make-do", Maori language treaty "official".

Maunsell’s official “make-do” Maori language treaty document was later torn apart, roughly pinned together; torn apart again by somebody unknown, to go their separate ways thereafter. (Tampering)

The 1975 apartheid Treaty of Waitangi Act was set up using the bottom sheet of Maunsell’s official Maori language treaty, that being the ‘ruined’ Freeman’s Formal Royal Style overseas dispatch English version with a weak Hobson signature and an ‘overflow’ of 39 Maori chiefs signatures on it. (Fraudulent use of an ‘official’ document)

And then the $6.5 million Treaty2U government propaganda travelling roadshow displayed a copy of this ‘Freeman English Version Fake’ with a more ROBUST Hobson’s signature displayed on it to better sell the lie? (Tampering)

The truth is out and it is up to this coalition Government to go back to 1975 and FIX IT!! Not another $1 more of taxpayers money towards APARTHEID.

Anonymous said...

It’s called being ‘dogmatic’.

Sue S said...

Your evidence that the Waikato Heads treaty was not an independent document is based on your claim that it was used in an emergency, and the two sheets (Maori and English) being attached to each other. I have not read of any historical evidence explaining it was used in an emergency; perhaps you could provide a source. The English copy was signed not only at Waikato Heads but also at Manukau so it was not a one-off mistake or an emergency stop gap.

You call it a rejected copy because it was sent after Freeman had been dismissed from treaty drafting duties, however he had not been dismissed from administrative duties and was still acting under the direction of Hobson. You go further to claim, without a shred of evidence, that Freeman induced Hobson to sign it and then rejected it because Hobson's signature was so weak.

You go on to say Maunsell's diary might have recounted this sequence, but so might have Hobson's notes saying that the English copy was not valid! Of course both scenarios are pure conjecture.

The Treaty in English was the document sent to Australian and British governments as the treaty of Waitangi in English, and this was also the same document published as part of the Kohimarama conference with the chiefs in 1860.

Ned Fletcher disusses at length the drafting of the English version of the treaty in his book The Engish Text of the Treaty of Waitangi. I suggest if you can back up your claims with evidence, please provide them as any good historian would.

At the end of the day, a treaty in the English language was signed by 39 chiefs and countersigned by Hobson who added his official seal to it. The same treaty was sent to British and Australian governments. The 1975 Treaty of Waitangi Act used this text.