I can hardly bring myself to think that the Acting Attorney General, the framer of the Regulations, would support your view, were his opinion specifically taken upon the meaning of the whole of the 75th clause.

But neither my opinion, nor that of His Excellency, nor that of the Acting Attorney General on such a point, can be conclusive; for under that very clause, it is enacted that any difference as to the interpretation of the Regulations shall be determined at Meetings of the Board—therefore, although His Excellency be of opinion that "on this point the Waste Land Board takes an erroneous view of its position and duties",—the opposite opinion of the Board must still, by law, prevail.

You inform me that His Excellency cannot understand upon what grounds "judicial officers can give it as their opinion, that a case within their jurisdiction, brought before them for decision, should be referred to the legal adviser of one of the parties in difference."

But on referring to the documents enclosed by you, I am unable to discover any such reference of the "case", to the decision of the Acting Attorney General.

The Surveyor General submitted,—not Mr. Farmer’s claim, but a point of law arising out of that claim, to the Acting Attorney General for his opinion. This opinion he was unable to obtain, His Excellency considering that the "whole" question should "be left to the Board without the prejudice of the opinion sought for being communicated to them."

The Board (Resolution No. 34), with precise reference to the point of law, namely, "whether certain instructions issued by the Governor to the Surveyor General" on the 11th of November, 1853, are to have the effect of law in connection with the Regulations of the 4th of March preceding, consider that they could not be justified in undertaking to decide what appears more particularly to appertain to the department of the Law Officer of the Crown."

If the question, as you put it, be really between Mr. Farmer and the General Government, and not between Mr. Farmer and Mr. Wheeler,—still I am unable to understand how the General Government comes to be placed as it were in the position of a litigant, and the Attorney-General in that of advocate to such litigant; I should rather suppose that the place of the General Government is that of ordering right to be done; and that of the Attorney-General of advising what is right.

But by representing him as the "legal adviser of one of the parties in difference", it is implied that he might take a one-sided or partial view of the question.

You observe that "the Department of the Waste Land Board is not under the control of the General Government." As you appear, unless I mistake the general tenor of your letter, to expect my interference, I would observe that the Waste Land Board is no further under the control of the Provincial Government. The Governor has a certain power of appointment and removal, and the Superintendent has a parallel power; but the Regulations are silent as to the subordination of the Board to either Government.

I may be allowed, in conclusion, to observe that there is a certain objection to the referring any question whatever to the Waste Land Board; for it is difficult to perceive how the Board, unless they happen to be unanimous in opinion, can arrive at any decision at all. It is nowhere enacted in the Regulations that questions which shall there arise shall be decided by the majority of votes of the members present; or whether in all cases wherein the votes shall be equal, any member of the Board shall have a casting vote. It is not a matter of course that a majority shall overbear a minority, as will be clearly seen by reference to the 23rd clause of the Constitution Act, in which formal provision to that effect is made with reference to the decision of questions by Provincial Councils.

I have the honor to be,

Sir,

Your obedient, humble servant,

Wm. Brown,

Superintendent.

The Honourable

the Colonial Secretary,

Waste Land Board Office, Auckland,

July, 23rd 1855.

Resolution, No. 37.

Referring to the Colonial Secretary’s letter No. 164, communicated to the Waste Land Board by his Honor the Superintendent on the 18th inst., the Board is of opinion that that letter must have been written under a misapprehension of the case in question and of the position of the Board.

From paragraph No. 2 of that letter it would seem that the Board’s resolution No. 34 was to the effect, that the decision of the claim to which that resolution referred, appertained to the Department of the Law Officer of the Crown. This however was not so. The meaning of that resolution was that it appertained to the Department of the Law Officer of the Crown to give an opinion upon the point raised by Mr. Farmer and explicitly asked for by the Surveyor-General, viz., whether instructions issued to the Surveyor-General dated November 11th 1853 were of the same force as the Land regulations of March 4th 1853.

In the 3rd paragraph it is assumed that, by the 75th clause of the present Land Regulations, part of which is quoted in support,—that it is the duty of the Board to hear and determine "all disputes and differences relating or incident to the sale, &c., of the Waste Lands of the Crown," and it is alleged that the Board has neglected its duty in not having settled the case referred to. But had the whole of that clause been quoted, it would have been at once seen that the jurisdiction of the Board extended over disputes and differences arising under the existing regulations only. The case between the Surveyor-General and Mr. Farmer arises under Sir G. Grey’s regulations and the Board is not constituted a tribunal to de-