SPECIAL TELEGRAMS.

Thames Advertiser, Volume VII, Issue 1888, 6 November 1874, Page 3

SPECIAL TELEGRAMS.

(Per Anglo-Australian Telegraph Press Agency.) — ■» Afckland, Thursday, 6.50 p.m. The Eifle Association firing to-day resulted as follows :-E, E. Partington, 60; Skinner, 57; Mills, 57; Haslctt, 56; Col. Hay, 56; J. Partington, 55 ; Cooper, 56; W. Partington, 53; Kitchen, 49; Corporal Hay, 48; Pavics, 48 ; Leigh, 48; Bowden, 47; Stone, 43; Brighton, 43; Slater, 41; Leigh, 38; Morrow, 38; Soall, 35; Payne, 33. Aggregate Scores: Skinner, 121; Kelly, 118 ; Mills, 113; Kitchen, 107; May, 107; Haslett, 107; Cooper, 106; J. Partington, 104 ; Davies, 104; Bowden, 103: Hay, 103. Kange prizes 400 yards, Vol. Kelly, 46; 500 yards, Vol. Miller, 44; 600 yards, Lieut. Skinner, 36. Vol. Skinner won the first aggregate prize cup, presented by Mr Beck, to be held subject to regulations, and a silver cup presented by the Association, the latter being the winner's absolute property; also the range prize at the 600 yards, viz., a silver-mounted drinking horn. Vol. Kelly the second aggregate prize, viz., an eight-day cylinder clock; presented by Mr Kohn; also the range prize at the 400 yards, a silver-mounted glass cup; and Vol. Mills the third aggregate prize, a silvermounted .claret jug, and the 500 yards range prize, a silver-mounted oak tobacco stand. Vol. Kitchen, the fourth aggregate, a carbuncle breastpin. Vol. May» the fifth aggregate, an eight-day drum timepiece. Vol. Cooper, the sixth aggregate, a set of sardonyx studs. The Star to-night publishes a summary of another petition by Sir George Grey, addressed to Superintendent, reviewing the position of the colony's land fund. The petition sets forth that he (Sir George Grey) recently received a copy of the Injttelton Times of the 11th ulfc., from which ho became acquainted with the nature and origin of the compact of 1856, which took away the rights of the inhabitants of the province of Auckland to a share of the land fund of the colony. He therefore reports thereon. The petitioner proceeds to set forth that in 1845 the British Parliament placed in the hands of the Governor of Now Zealand £10,000, to be employed in purchasing land from the natives, and extinguishing the native title land suitable for settlement. The land so acquired was to be brought into the market as was thought expedient. That it was foreseen that the property so acquired would become very valuable as settlement progressed, and that its sale would afford means for extinguishing the native title oyer land in other districts. It was provided in the terms of the grant that while the profits from the laud so acquired might be applied to immigration and public works, the original sum of £10,000 was to be deducted from the sales and applied to the purchase of new districts; the operation to be repeated as long as the native title could be extinguished. In this way very large tracts of land were acquired in the Middle Island and a part of the JN'orth Island The portions which remained are.au well as the other portions disposed of, very valuable. These were acquired with British money, and were the property of the British people. The lands first acquired were of course (hose most easily obtained owing to the smallness of the native population, and for the same reason those were likely to be most easily colonised, and in which land would advance proportionately in value, giving a speedy prospect of land revenue available for public services in all parts of .New Zealand, and for extinguishing the native title over other districts. That in 1852 the Imperial Parliament granted a constitution to the colony providing for the representation of the people in purely local legislatures, also a General Assembly. That the people were perfectly represented in the Provincial Councils, but not so much so in the General Assembly, in which there were only two estates out of three nominated by the Crown. '1 hat in the New Zealand Bepresentalion Act, 1852, carelul precautions were adopted for preserving the system already provided for extinguishing the native title. Such lan Is were acquired for the British nation vested, as there is reason (o beliuve, are still iu the Crown. The acquisition of these lands, with an Imperial grant, and in the way which had previously been in operation, was specially insisted upon in a despatch to the Governor from the Imperial Government transmitting the New Zealand constitution. The Governor was authorised to use money, and the Assembly was restricted from interfering with it, any surplus from sales of land only being placed at the disposal of the Assembly. The petitioner here adduces several proofs that the surplus money only could be dealt with by the Colonial Legislature. Only the Governor and Superintendents were _ empowered to extinguish the native title. This wise provision was made to create a valuable public estate, and it was foreseen that the capital provided wou'd be constantly augmenting, and would last for generations. The principle involved was one which recognised the duty_ of the most flourishing parts of the empire to assist the poorer parts,and it was by this means that the influence of the commerce of the British Empire had been raised to its present high position. It •was to the interest of the whole colony that the native title should be extingmsbed m other parts of the colony, because land estate for the colony in this X T bemß instantly acquired. That he people of Auckland were Z t? ? tereSted in extinguish? mg the native title because they were generally Sma u f ~ .JJ territory. A large area of the province was also covered with forests, and waß much broken, rendering the construction oi Public works necessary to open up communication, difficult and expensive The petitioner sets it out as a general principle that if a more powerful Government deprives a weaker one of its revenues the latter gradually sinks, and ultimately becomes an object of contempt to its own citizens, who might, in this way, be led to let another rule them. The petitioner then proceeds to statotliat the depression of Auckland had mainly arisen from a resolution passed by the General Assembly in 1856, allocating to the Provincial Governments control over lands that belonged to the Crown; and, further, that the British Parliament, on a representatiohmadeloit,inlßs7 l passedanActamending the Constitution originally granted to INew Zealand; but this Act clearly defined its inientions, namely, to relieve i it from territorial revenue charges pre- : viousiy mide upon it. Other • provisions i loc, meeting, thW charges, having be,«n

provided. That in these measures the provinces were ignorant of the extent and scope of what was being done. The petitioner respectfully submitted that due provision was not made as required by the amending Act of the Imperial Parliament. For these reasons it seems doubtful whether some Acts of the General Assembly, in dealing with the waßte lands of the colony were not open to question as to validity and force. The petitioner here reviews the restrictions that were placed around the original grant of the provision made when the constitution was granted, and subsequently for preserving and maintaining a system of creating a public estate, and adds that it seemed doubtful whether the Act removing charges upon the land fund which had been created for the people would vest in the Assembly, without any special provision to that effect, powers which that Legislature never possessed, and which the Crown itself could not exercise without a special Act of Parliament. The petitioner then proceeds to set forth that resolutions have been recently passed by the General Assembly in relation to the disposal of the laud revenue of the colony, and it was doubtful whether the Legislature possessed power to pass such resolution, but it was most probable that the resolution would be submitted to the Home Government with a view to action thereon. He maintained that the people of the province of Auckland should be made acquainted with every step taken in order that they might be afforded an opportunity for defending their rights either in the colonial Parliament or the British House of Commons. Moreover, a member of the General Assembly had publicly stated in Auckland recently that Southerners admit that the North Island had not been fairly dealt with in connection with the resolutions of 1856, and were anxious to come to reasonable terms. Petitioner maintained that this was sufficient reason why such reasonable terms should be come to, and the rights of the people of Auckland secured. He therefore prays the Superintendent to take, such steps as he and his advisers may think fit to secure the rights of the people of the province of .Auckland, and prevent any hurried action in the matter by the British Parliament. Sharemarket. — Sales: Cure, 9s 9d. Buyers: City of London, 245; Bay of Islands Coal, £9. Sellers: Caledonian, £510s; Union Beach, lis 6d; Vanguard, 2s 3d; Bright Smiles, 60i.