OUR LETTER HOME.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXIV, Issue 10417, 15 April 1897, Page 1 (Supplement)

OUR LETTER HOME.

' Ifgu news that the Earl of fianfurly has been appointed Governor of New Zealand in succession to the Earl of ■ Glasgow has been received with satisfaction. His Lordship has visited the colonies, and takes a special interest in them. He will be received with every demonstration of welcome as the representative of Her Majesty. A special session of Parliament has just been held for the purpose of making the arrangements necessary to enable the Premier to accept the invitation of the Secretary of State for the Colonies. The usual time for the meeting of our session of Parliament is J une, and as Ministers concluded that the business could not be carried on without the Premier, it was necessary, if Jlr. Chamberlain's invitation were accepted, that a special session should be held to vote supplies, and that the business session should be postponed till September or October. Accordingly Parliament was summoned for Tuesday, April 6, and met on that day. As this was the first session of a new Parliament, the first duty was to elect a Speaker. Sir Maurice O'Rorke was proposed, and there being no other nomination he was unanimously elected. In thanking the members for the honour conferred upon him, Sir Maurice referred to the fact that he was now the only member who had sat in the Parliament of 1861. Sir Maurice O'Rorke has now been elected Speaker for seven times. On Wednesday the Governor's Speech was delivered by the Acting - Governor, Sir James Prendergast. It referred only to the departure of the Earl of Glasgow, the appointment of the Earl of Ranfuily, and the special object of the session. The Address-in-Reply was moved by Mr. Hutcheson, one of the newly-elected members for Wellington, and seconded by Mr. Allen, ot Waikoaiti. The Premier laid on the table a synopsis of the financial position of the colony, which, counting the balances from previous years, showed a surplus of £340,000. No financial discussion took place, that being left over to the new session. A resolution was moved approving of the colony being represented at the Jubilee celebrations by the Premier. This was carried on the voices. A good deal of discussion took place on the subject of sending a contingent, which was opposed by several of the Uovernmeut party. Ultimately the proposal of the Ministers with regard to a contingent was carried. New Zealand will, therpfore, be represented by a contingent of 30 Europeans and 20 natives, and also by a team of rideinen to compete at Bisley. The necessary supplies were also granted. The business was concluded on the Saturday. There was not during the session any deliberate measuring of the strength of parties, but what took place showed pretty well how matters stood. There is no doubt that the Government have been very seriously weakened by the late general election. The Premier's motion was to grant supplies to the 14th of October, and Captain Russell moved that the date be the 30th September. The Premier's motion was carried by 39 to 27. The most critical party division was that taken on the Premier's motion, that Mr. Guinness be elected Chairman of Committees, which was carried by 35 to 32. It is quite certain that the preponderance of ability and of debating power is on the side of the Opposition, and that the Government will have much less strength than it has wielded in previous sessions. The vote for the contingent could not have been carried by the Government except for the aid of the Opposition. The Ministry have been weakened, not only by an increase of strength in the Opposition, but they have lost the strong hold which they have . hitherto maintained over the members of their own party, In another column we give a careful and elaborate judeineut by Mr. Justice Conolly in the case of Aitken v. Kenny, which is very important in several respects. Mr. Conolly's judgment upholds the validity of Mr. Aitken's Crown grant against those parties who pegged out his land. It would have been monstrous if it hud been found that a man who had held a piece of land for more than thirty years under a Crown grant could be deprived of it by one who had no claim whatever in equity. The decision will be useful as strengthening the position of the freeholder, and as showing that his rights cannot be interfered with except by some express statutory provision. His Honor commenced by stating that the right of the Crown to the royal minerals was admitted by the appellant. On this point, even, we think there is a good deal to be said. s The Crown acquired New Zealand by a treaty, not by conquest, nor by the simple process of taking possession in the name of the Sovereign. We have the express terms of the treaty, and there is nothing in them which could be taken as conveying to the Crown of Great Britain the prerogative of the ownership of the gold and silver. The Warden, in his judgment, referred somewhat flippantly to the treaty of Waitangi as an'' ancient bugbear," and after certain decisions which have been given by the Supreme Court, we could scarcely expect that it would be held here that the Crown did not possess the right to the royal minerals as against native owners. But we do think that there is a very good chance indeed that on appeal to the Privy Council it could be maintained that the Crown's prerogative in regard to the gold and silver was not the same in Sew Zealand as in England or as in Canada or Australia. We are fortified iu that opinion by early conveyances from the natives, when the Crown insisted that these metals should be specially ceded, and by other incidents attending the first Crown grants in this province. We are fortified also by the whole history of the dealings of the Crown with the natives for auriferous lands. In every case the agents of the Crown expressly acknowledged that the gold unci silver belonged to the natives. The Crown bought auriferous land from the natives at far higher Prices than would have been offered except for the precious metals. It has acknowledged the ownership of the petals by the natives in many ways. However, none of the complicated Questions belonging to this branch of the subject was raised in the Supreme Court, so that Mr. Justice Conolly was not required to give » n y opinion on them. Mr. Cooper Mmittcd that the Crown had the right •to enter on private land, but argued that that right had to be covered by the provisions of the MiniDg Acts, and *«at under the Mining Acts all lands granted by the Crown prior to December, 1868, were expressly reserved from .. of the mining laws unless the owner of the grant had made ;»n agreement with the' Governor. Perhaps the most useful portion of ' ™ judgment is that in which His Honor deals with the native agree"Hints, of which we have heard so much, ' •*»" which formed so important a part ■ '« '-lie c»se for those who pegged out . "Mr.Aitken'eland. Theexistence of these •*'eemeiits has indeed been a bugbear to •N holding freehold laud oa the Thames

peninsula. The case for Major Swindley was, tlwt Mr. Aitken look his Crown grant, " subject to a previous release or surrender to the Crown of the right to mine on the land, and that if the prerogative of the Crown had been waived by legislation it was restored by these agreements." But the Supreme Court had already decided, many years ago, that "this Court has do jurisdiction to avoid a Crown grant, or anything therein contained, on the pretence that the Crown had not conformed in its grant to the terms on which the aboriginal owners have ceded their rights in the land." The decision is of great value, as clearing up many disputed questions respecting the goldfields. The effect of the agreements made witli the natives, and the bearing they have on the goldfields Acts, have never hitherto come before any Court. The result of the judgment is to strengthen the right of the holder of a Crown grant, and to show that his title cannot be affected by claims founded on vague arrangements. If Mr. Aitken's land could have been taken from him by the pleas set up by those who pegged it out, a most gross injustice would have been perpetrated under the colour of legal right. The plaintiff in the original claim in the Warden's Court had no shadow of an equitable right, and it is now found that he had no standing whatever in law. The Federal Convention has been in session at Adelaide for the greater part of the month. It is a representative assembly of the ablest men in Australia for the purpose of framing a Federal Constitution, and from the way in which the business has been proceeded with, there is little doubt but the result will be that the Australian colonies will become a federation, thus materially strengthening themselves and the Empire. The most powerful politicians in New Zealand at the present time declined to take any part in the Federation movement, so that we stand out. Probably tlie reason of our public men is, that under a Federation with the Australian colonies they would lose some of their preseut power. We believe a mistake has been made in this matter, and that before loug we shall regret having decided to remain outside. Mr. George Riguold and his company have had a long and successful season at the Opera House, playing "Henry V," "Called Back," "The Lights o , London," "Toniiny Atkins," "Confusion," etc., to very large audiences. Miss Emilie Hughes has taken the leading lady partSi and has won golden opinions. The season was the opening of a New Zealand tour.