with the Government’s determination to survey and Pirirakau resistance to that survey, together led to armed conflict. No one party was responsible for that conflict.

51.       Chapter Eleven concludes the report by providing information on the post-war economic situation of Tauranga Maori.

Hayes evidence

52.       The evidence of Mr Hayes relates to the issue of alienation restrictions on land. The key conclusions of this report are:

52.1     The lands to be returned by the Crown were not “reserves” in the technical sense and therefore not automatically subject to the then usual restriction on alienation by sale or by lease of more than 21 years.

52.2     There is no extant evidence at 1864 or 1866 to support the notion that the lands to be given back were to be either permanently inalienable or subject to an ordinary restriction on alienation. Had Grey intended to impose a blanket permanent or ordinary restriction on alienation at 1864 or 1866, his action would have been contrary to the policy of the Native Lands Acts 1862 and 1865.

52.3     It is unlikely Clarke ever considered all the returned lands to be inalienable despite Halcombe’s 1872 claim that H T Clarke had ‘suggested’ otherwise.

52.4     In response to the blanket restriction imposed in November 1878 Tauranga Maori were adamant that the Governor had promised to return the lands free of restrictions.

53.       Importantly, Chapter Two of Mr Hayes’ evidence provides the contextual background to the Government’s policy on alienation restrictions. Mr Hayes says that throughout the 1840s, 50s and 60s the Crown wrestled