The Land Court Bill.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XVI, Issue 5572, 18 September 1889, Page 3

The Land Court Bill.

♦ ' In the discussion in the House of Reprtsentativcs on the above Bill, the member for the East Coast, made the following speech, as reported in Mansard :— MiGraham. — I was under the impression that an arrangement has been come to that no discussion to speak of should take place on the second reading of this Bill, but. that the discussion should take phco when the Bill conies back from the Native Affairs Committee. However, as a number of honorable members have spoken on the Bill, find as it seems to me that there is a very great deal of misconception with reference to some of the clauses of the Bill, I should like to say a few words from my point of view and from the point of view of the district which I represent. We have had many advocates here of the rights of the natives ; but I maintain that the European has his rights as well as the Native, and I think that when I have explained what clause 14 is meant to remedy, honourable members will see that there are two sides to this question. I thought last session, when we passed the Native Bills, that further legislation on this subject would uot be required for some time ; but since then a decision of the Supreme Court has been given which entirely upsets everything that has been done, and unless the defect in the law is remedied it will have the elfect of ruining a large number of very deserving settlers throughout the North Island. At any rate, I can speak for the district from which 1 come. This provision will affect a great deal of land bought and paid for by numbers of (><ma fide settlers. These men have complied with all the technicalities of the difierent Native-land laws so far as they and their solicitors and the Native Land Court deemed necessary and right. The value of the property which is at stake unless some such clause as this is passed amounts to hundred of thousands of pounds. I will shortly explain how that comes about. In the Act of 1873 itis laid down thatthe sanction of allthegranteeßinustbeobtained and every signature be got before a transact ion is legal. The effect of that provision was very soon seen, especially in cases where large numbers of names of Natives were inserted in the grant. In many cases there are, perhaps, from fifty to a hundred names inserted, and in order that the transaction may bo legal the signature of every one of these grantees has to be obtained. That is the effect of the recent decision of the Supreme Court. The Native Land Court has long dealt with this matter very differently. It has recognised that the purchase of individual shares and undivided shares under the Act of 1873 is legal ; and different Acts have laid down rules for the partition of blocks and the issue of titles. Many of the cases to which I have referred, have gone so far that Land Transfer titles have been issued to the purchaser ; and these titles, although passed by the Land District Registrar, have now been called in. Is it natural to suppose that men will sit down quietly after spending thousands of pounds in acquiring a title, and after having lived, perhaps, the best part of their lives on the land and effected vast im-

provements on it- is it to be supposed that they will quietly submit to be deprived of their land through a legal quibble ?— because it is neither more nor less than that. Ido not think that even the Native members would consider that that would be fair. In talking over the matter with them, I have learned that they are perfectly willing to have a clause inserted which will do justice to such cases as I have mentioned. lam rather astonished at the speech of the honorable member for the Western Maori District, because I thought he would understand better what the clause means. So far as I understand it, not one single transaction will be covered by the 14th section unless in such cases the full money has been paid and tho deed passed by the Frauds Commissioner. I may say that during the last fourteen or fifteen years we have been spending at the rate of LIO,OOO or L 12,000 a year simply in trying to find out what the different Nativeland laws of the colony are, and we have not succeeded yet. This decision of the Supreme Court, to which I have already referred, has totally upset all our previous knowledge of what the Native-land legislation was. I only want what is fair, and I do not think there is any member of the House, if he knew the hardship of the cases as well as I do, but would see the necessity of passing some validating measure of this sort. W r ith regard to the 15th clause, I dare say that might very well come out— it is just possible that some of the restrictions imposed at the time of the stile might be covered by this clause ; but they could be very easily settled in Committee. With reference to the whole of the Bill, I think it would have been very much better if the discussion had not taken place, because the Bill is likely to be altered to some extent in Committee. But, with reference to clause 14, which has created such hostile comment, 1 might say that it is absolutely necessary that a clause of this sort should be inserted, or I scarcely like to answer for the consequences on the East Coast. There are many men who would simply be disinherited. The value of the land in respect of which th:> decision of the Supreme Court says the titles are not valid amounts to many hundreds of thousands of pouuds, and these men are not going to sit down quietly and see their property taken from them in that way. I trust the house will see that there are two sides to the question, and that the Bill will be relegated to a fair Committee to examine the matter exhaustively, and see justice done not only to Natives, but to Europeans.