A.—4

234

Ith Day.] Imperial Appeal Court. [12 June, 1911. Mr. BRODEUR— ccmt. Columbia, referred to the Supreme Court, and it is understood between the two that the one who fails before the Supreme Court in their contention will have the opportunity of coming before the Privy Council to ask for leave to appeal. That shows you the satisfaction or confidence that the people have in the judgments of the Privy Council. I believe, on the whole, that any|change might at first be resented by the Provinces, who claim absolutely and certainly the right of dealing with appeals. Secondly, I think it would reflect upon the court that we have to-day, and which is giving us satisfaction. I think, also, it may perhaps not be advisable to change a system which has been in existence now for a number of years, and which has been giving satisfaction. Perhaps, also, I might urge that it would not be opportune for this Conference to try to deprive the House of Lords of one of the rights and privileges which it is enjoying to-day. The House of Lords is a question which appertains entirely to the Imperial Parliament, and I think perhaps it would not be opportune for us just now to raise the question of changing or increasing or decreasing the powers and privileges now enjoyed by the House of Lords. Sir JOSEPH WARD : I would like to make it clear at the inception of the observations which I propose to make, that in submitting a resolution suggesting a change, I have certainly never had in my mind, nor have any of my colleagues in New Zealand, the idea that the Privy Council has not done its work well or that we were dissatisfied with the work of the Privy Council. My own opinion is that the Privy Council has given general satisfaction as far as we are concerned, and I should be very sorry to adopt the assumption of my friend, Mr. Brodeur, who has just spoken, that if we suggest the making of a change it is to be regarded as a reflection upon the existing institution. If that line of argument were to be applied to everything which we attempted to change, then we should never make any progress at all in anything. I am approaching this matter from the New Zealand standpoint without the slightest idea of reflecting either upon the Privy Council or the individual members of the Privy Council who have dealt with any of the cases that have been brought before it from New Zealand; but one of the primary causes for our urging a change is that we are singularly peculiar in one important matter—we have about 7,000,000 acres of land in our country which is owned by natives. There are about 47,000 natives in New Zealand, and it must be obvious to any one that in a country whose general area is not very large, where we have land to the extent of 7,000,000 acres, the proprietors of which are a different race to the Europeans, there is a great amount of litigation from time to time, and appeals have been made to the Privy Council in the past, and will be made in the future. Our people in New Zealand —those who are specially concerned in the administration of the native affairs of the country, and also many members of the legal profession—while not in any way reflecting upon the decisions of the Court of Appeal, which they accept in all loyalty (and rightly so, coming from a body of that kind), consider that in matters relating to native land which come before the Privy Council heie, what is a custom, as far as the native law in New Zealand is concerned, may not in the ordinary sense be fully recognised by the Privy Council when dealing with those laws. Custom is considered in the preparation of them in New Zealand and the passing of them through the Legislature. One of the things we have to considei in making provision by statute for dealing with native lands is the custom of the natives. In our own courts, though the actual custom cannot of itself be taken as against the law, it is quite a common thing for evidence to be called upon what the custom of the Maori is in connection with the lands that may be held either under the communistic system or by individuals. The position is entirely different in most countries as to the way in which land is administered, and for that reason, as we have found it necessary to introduce this important question of custom when dealing with the laws controlling the Native lands in New Zealand, we have felt from time to time—and I could cite cases bearing on the point I am trying to make, but I think it is not necessary to do so —that when these important cases relating to land and vitally affecting the interests of both Europeans and natives are sent