Poverty Bay Standard. PUBLISHED EVERY TUESDAY, THURSDAY AND SATURDAY MORNINGS. SATURDAY, JULY 31, 1882.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume X, Issue 1094, 1 July 1882, Page 2

Poverty Bay Standard. PUBLISHED EVERY TUESDAY, THURSDAY AND SATURDAY MORNINGS. SATURDAY, JULY 31, 1882.

Wednesday last was the time appointed about a fortnight ago for the House to go into Committee upon the Native Land Court Act, 1880, Amendment Bill. On the occasion of the Bill passing the second reading the Hon. Mr Bryce announced that the Government purposed bringing forward during the session some such measure as the one then before the House for dealing with the intricate question of the Subdivision of Native Lands. From the general tenor of the Hon. the Native Minister’s observations, it would seem that there were some amendments that might be made that this Bill did not provide for. The latest intelligence we have is that the Bill has passed through Committee, after having undergone some such amendments. What particular form those amendments assume, we atd from lack of information, unable to say. It is to be hoped, however, ti a' the-Government, having affirmed the principle of the Bill, have not made any alterations that will in any way hamper its proposed action in legislation. For some months past t'is question of improvement in the liw affecting the individualization of interests has been kept prominently before the public. The local bod : es and the local Press have alike urged the necessity of change as far as in their power lay. For the last three or four sessions Bill after Bill affecting the matter has been brought before the House. First, there was a Native Law Suits Bill for the East Coast, which did not suit at all. Then, on Mr McDonald’s entry into the Parliamentary arena, the Native Law Suits Bill was served up as a rechauffte, only to meet the same fate. This was followed last session by anothor Bill, popularly known as the “ Otherwise ” Bill. N one of these measures, however, suited the political palate of the times. Something more piquant and less of a hash was required, and this want would seem to have at last been supplied by Mr McDonald’s measure, ‘•The Native Land Court Act, 1880, Amendment Bill,” which seems to deal fairly and intelligibly with the quasi io vexata of the allocation of individual shares, with every reasonable prospect of its becoming law. The Bill in its amended form will shortly come before the Tapper House, and there we the Hon. Randall Johnson, who has given much attention to thi» subject, to look after it in the infests of the district. Doubtless there are one or two points im the Bill wWch would bear amendment, but in ihe absence of definite information as to the alterations made in Committee, there is no necessity for us to indicate where such changes might be advantageously made. The Bill is good and faithful in its entirety, and even if unamended in any way is far and away the best measure affecting Native Land subdivision that has been laid before the House. We look hopefully forward to this measure becoming law, feeling, as we do, that there is a great probability of the present session of Parliament being more fruitful in respect to its legislation for Native Landsmatters—a sub ject of paramount importance* to this district—than any of its predecessors.