35.       Notwithstanding that lawfulness, however, the Crown has in recent times accepted that the underlying cause of the rebellion at least partially involved conduct by the Crown that is with hindsight regarded as unreasonable. And in light of the evidence that it will present, the Crown acknowledges that the confiscation of not more than 42,000 acres of the Tauranga lands was unjust and in breach of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.

36.       By itself, however, this concession is of limited assistance to the Tribunal. It is the nature and extent of the breach in Tauranga, and any prejudice caused to Tauranga Maori by it, that must be the crux of the inquiry. The questions posed above relating to the surrounding circumstances still require answer. In this respect the Crown will say:

36.1     confiscation was, in 19^th century terms, an orthodox response to acts of rebellion;

36.2     in 1864 some Maori in the Waikato, Tauranga and the Eastern Bay of Plenty were perceived to be in rebellion against the Crown;

36.3     the Crown did not “invade” Tauranga in 1864;

36.4     the Crown did not send troops to Tauranga with the ulterior motive of provoking conflict thereby justifying confiscation;

36.5     the troops that were sent to Tauranga remained peacefully at Te Papa throughout January, February and March 1864 observing Maori movements;

36.6     after conflict in April and June 1864, Tauranga Maori surrendered the mana of the land to the Governor and said the land was his to do with as he liked;

36.7     this seemed to be in accordance with concepts of Maori custom;