I.—2b

32

The Maori will very unwillingly give any authority to a form of administration such as is here provided. The men of a different tribe, lam certain, will prefer to deal with their own lands through their own people. It is likely that a Committee, which is a change of name for " trustee " —in fact, this is a return pro tanto to the principle of the Act of 1865—would be acceptable to the Maori if we were to assume that this Bill goes as far as that Act did—l mean with respect to perfect freedom. Under that Act the Court had no power to issue title to more than ten persons, the intention being that, if there were more than ten, the land could be divided into pieces, so that every ten had a piece of land. Here the number is seven, but there powers are more limited than under the Act of 1865. Ido not say that I object to this at all. I think this is a very good principle :to have these representative men. I think, if this principle were properly elaborated, guarded from danger of the mischiefs that became apparent in the operation of the' Act of 1865, and, properly carried out, it affords a true solution of the difficulty of dealing with Native lands. The great difficulty to be guarded against is the care of the disposition of the money in case of sale. lam not at all certain that four years' tenure of office is not too long. I think that the Maoris would like a more frequent change of representation ; but Ido not give that as an opinion. I find that in this Bill what is called the "pre-emptive right" of the Crown is preserved. As a question of law, of constitutional law—which possibly the Committee may not wish me to say anything about —I am very doubtful whether that right can be resumed by the Crow Tn. As a a matter of law—l do not know whether the powers of Parliament are or not here subject to any supervision, such as they have in America, but I suppose that is a point which cannot be determined, not here, at any rate —I must say Ido not see how, having abandoned that right, given under the Treaty of Waitangi in 1862, Parliament, without the consent of the Natives, could ever resume it. The Act of 1862 was reserved for Her Majesty's pleasure. It was drawn by some of the ablest men we ever had in New Zealand. It recites the Treaty of Waitangi. It recites that the chiefs yielded to Her Majesty the exclusive right of pre-emption, and it goes on, in rather a solemn way, to declare the objects they had in view. It was, no doubt, a very good thing they were doing: it certainly appeared so at the time. The preamble sets forth that, " Whereas by the Treaty of Waitaugi, entered into by and between Her Majesty and the chiefs of New Zealand, it was, among other things, declared that Her Majesty confirmed and guaranteed to the chiefs and tribes of New Zealand, and the respective families and individuals thereof, the full, exclusive, and undisturbed possession of their lands and estates, which they collectively and individually held, so long as it should be their desire to retain the same. And it was further declared that the chiefs yielded to Her Majesty the exclusive right of pre-emption over such lands as the proprietors thereof might be disposed to alienate : And whereas it would greatly promote the peaceful settlement of the colony and the advancement and civilization of the Natives if their rights to land were ascertained, defined, and declared, and if the ownership of such lands, when so ascertained, defined, and declared, were assimilated as nearly as possible to the ownership of land according to British law : And whereas, with a view to the foregoing objects, Her Majesty may be^pleased to waive in favour of the Natives so much of the said Treaty of Waitangi as reserves to Her Majesty the right of pre-emption of their land, and to establish Courts and make other provision for ascertaining and defining the rights of the Natives to their lands, and for otherwise giving effect to the provisions of this Act. And it is expedient that the General Assembly of New Zealand should facilitate the said objects by enacting such provisions as are hereinafter contained." Having read that preamble, I merely reassert, having called the attention of Committee to that preamble, that I do not see how that right could be again set up without the assent of Her Majesty and the Native people. Of course, Parliament is omnipotent in one sense. 538. Sir G. Grey.] You mean that the Queen, having absolutely waived her right, cannot resume it?— Yes; without consent. We may say what wo please about it, but the Treaty of Waitangi was made by the British Government as with a " foreign Power." 539. What is the number of that Act ?—42. 540. And the date ?—lsth September, 1862. 541. And the title?— [lnterpreter: It is an "Act to provide for the Ascertainment of tho ownership of Native Lands ; for granting Certificates of Title, for regulating the Disposal of Native _Lands, and for other Purposes." The Short Title of the Act is " The Native Lands Act, 1862."] 542. Hon. Mr. Bryce.] I do not wish to interfere with the manner in which the witness is giving his evidence ; but perhaps it would be convenient if_ Mr. Fenton stated wherein the right of pre-emption waived, as has been described, is set up by this Bill. I merely suggest this for the purpose of making Mr. Fenton's evidence on this part complete. Will you state that to the Committee? —The Crown is not subject to-this Act. Supposing my view is correct, that the Act will operate very little, if at all, in enabling transfers of land to be made from one race to another, any one purchasing otherwise than under this Act will be liable to imprisonment— except the Crown; the Crown, that is, is exempt from all operations under this Act. I apprehend that is an indirect return to pre-emption. 543. It would not become me to say anything in the way of argument upon this just now, but I may remind you that the main object of this Bill is to provide a means of disposing of Native lands otherwise than by sale to the Crown?—l think I see what you mean. Assuming, whether it is so or not, that the Crown has no right over lands except such as are common to the Crown's subjects, you can find no reason, except that of public policy, why pre-emption should exist. 544. Hon. Mr. Ballance.] You said that the act of throwing the ascertainment of title into the hands of the Government would not be acceptable to the Maoris ?—Yes. 545. You-say this does not deal with the ascertainment of title :jvhat do you mean by that?— I mean the disposal of the laad; I did not say investigating title. 546. What reason have you for supposing that ? —I have observed that Natives prefer to deal with their land therriselves..