PARLIAMENTARY.

Globe, Volume XX, Issue 1450, 9 October 1878, Page 2

PARLIAMENTARY.

[per press agency.] HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. Tuesday, October 9. ' ' DISQUALIFICATION BILL. After half-past ten last night the discussion on this Bill was continued. Clause 6 was retained on division by 37 to 19. Clause 8 was amended so as to disqualify natives accepting Q-overnment contracts. Mr Stevens moved the second reading o| new clauses, exempting persons to whom con; tracts devolved by law, or persons receiving public money by law for land and property required for public works. This was agreed to. The Bill was reported and ordered to be recommitted on Thursday. SECOND READINGS. The following Bills were read a second time and ordered to be committed on Thursday Dangerous Goods Acts Amendment Public Revenues Consolidation ; Literary Institutions and Public Libraries ; Thames Harbor Board Act Amendment; Brands Re-| gistration ; Impounding. The last two were ordered for committal on Monday. NATIVE LAWSUITS. A long discussion took place on the second reading of the Native Lawsuits Bill, moved by Mr Stout, which professes to constitute a Court with final jurisdiction to adjudicate on disputed Native lands questions on the East Coast, Mr Ormond strongly denounced the Bill, which, he said, ought to be designated “a Bill to confiscate the property of certain Europeans to friends of the Government.” He denied that Europeans would shrink from enquiry, and asserted that they were willing to accept a Commission with final powers proceeding according to principles of real justice and good conscience, or a Court presided over by a Judge selected by the Judges themselves and proceeding on the same principles. He considered that the Government would naturally be biased on these lands questions, and therefore the proposal to empower them to select the presiding Judge was monstrous and iniquitous. The property in dispute would amount to two millions, which any nominee of the Government would have the right absolutely to dispose of at discretion. The people in his district who would be affected by the proposed legislation would consent to a reference of these cases to some person unacquainted with and uninterested in Maori questions, who would be assisted by some person who understood these matters. Mr Russell advocated the same course, and argued that there should be no appeal from the Court. He twitted the AttorneyGeneral on having, as Minister, to decide upon the appointment of a judge to preside over the Court to try these cases, when the Attorney-General would himself hold many briefs in the cases heard before the Court. Mr Macparlane was disappointed with the Bill, as it did not provide for the trial of these case before a judge and jury. He condemned so much absolute power being given to one man. Mr Whitaker traced the previous efforts to bring these disputes to a satisfactory conclusion, and said the real point at issue between the parties was whether these cases should be tried according to strict rules of law, or real justice and good conscience without legal forms. The Native Minister said the Natives would never consent to decide these by equity and good conscience when Europeans tenaciously took advantage of all forms of law to defeat legal processes. He emphatically denied any bias actuating Ministers. They desired to bring these vexed question to a satisfactory conclusion. He had relinquished his professional engagements in connection with the East Coast land cases when he took office. He would be willing to refer the appointment of the judge to the Queen; but if this Bill was rejected, the Natives would fall back on the ordinary tribunals. Mr Stout denied any political bias in these cases. The Government proposed to obtain the services of some eminent legal authority outside the colony to hear these cases, such as Mr Higginbotham. The Bill was read a second time, and the committal fixed for Thursday. The House adjourned at five minutes past one.