THE NEW ZEALAND GAZETTE. 499

equity giving to such a conveyance a conclusive or
barring operation.

Such may be and perhaps is the true construction;
and it is borne out by the concluding paragraph of
that part of the fifty-first section. "And the rights
"and interests of the parties interested shall remain
"unaffected thereby," that is "that notwithstanding
any rule of law or equity to the contrary, such
"interests shall remain unaffected by the Company's
"deed, leaving such interests to be affected by the
ordinary law of the Colony, but unaffected by the
"Company's deeds, whatever peculiar effect they
"might by law have." So construed, the Land
Registry Act would not be repugnant to the Imperial
Acts, and if this construction were undoubted, no
Imperial legislation would now be required. As,
however, much doubt is entertained in New Zealand
as to the meaning of the words in question, it appears
necessary that the Imperial Legislature should be
asked either to remove the doubt by declaring that
the meaning above suggested is the true one, or to
make such provision as will enable Crown Grants of
such lands to be accepted as conclusive evidence of
title either at once or after some period, or after
notice given-or to provide that the equitable estates
charges and liens kept alive by the fifty-first section
should for the purpose of the Land Registry Act be
barred either immediately on issue of grant, or after
a lapse of some fixed period of time from issue of
grant, or after a lapse of some fixed period from
registration under the Registry Act. For instance,
two years, as is provided in the Registry Act generally,
as to interests of persons non-resident in New
Zealand at the time of registration.

It still remains to refer to an Ordinance passed by
the New Zealand Legislature for the purpose of
removing the difficulties which the transfers of and
dealings with the Company's land orders gave rise to.
The 15th Vict. Session XI., No. 15, an Ordinance
of the Governor and Legislative Council (The New
Zealand Company's Land Claimants Ordinance)
makes provision for investigation being made by
Commissioners into such dealings, and for issue of
Crown Grants to the persons appearing to such
Commissioners to be the persons entitled, and pro-
vides that such grant shall give a valid title against
all persons whatever.

In cases of land orders, investigations by Commis-
sioners have always been made, and if the provisions
of the Ordinance making the title created by the
grant good against all the world were valid, there
would be now no difficulty, because other equitable
estates, liens, or charges (if any) would be defeated
by such a grant. But if the Imperial Act (9th and
10th Vict., c. 382) enacts that the equitable estate,
charges, and interests shall (irrespective of any
peculiar effect which a Company's conveyance might
by law have) continue notwithstanding any rule of
law or equity to the contrary, is not the provision in
the Colonial Ordinance giving to a Crown Grant
made under it a conclusive operation repugnant to
the fifty-first section of the Imperial Act (9th and
10th Vict., c. 382), and so far as it is repugnant,
void? It cannot be doubted that it is so. However,
this Ordinance has been deemed invalid on another
ground. On the 21st July, 1852, Sir John Pakenham,
in a Despatch to Governor Grey, points out to him
the invalidity of this Ordinance, in so far as it is
repugnant to the provisions of the 10th and 11th
Vict., c. 112, section 19, above referred to. The
Ordinance provides that proceedings under it and
grants made thereunder shall be deemed, both at law
and equity, a full and complete performance by the
Crown, or behalf of the Company, of the contract or
obligation contained in or resulting from any land
order, contract, or scrip, and shall be deemed a good,

valid, and effectual conveyance of the land purported
to be conveyed by such grant as against Her Majesty,
her heirs and successors, and against all other persons
whatsoever. The Ordinance was deemed invalid
as conflicting with the 10th and 11th Vict., c. 112,
which imposed on the Crown the fulfilment of the
Company's contracts. It is not suggested, in the
Despatch above referred to, that the Ordinance,
where it enacts that the Crown Grant made under it
shall be a good conveyance against not only the
Crown, but also "against all other persons whatso-
ever," was invalid as conflicting with the fifty-first
section of the 9th and 10th Vict., c. 382, in con-
nection with the tenth section of the 14th and 15th
Vict., c. 85. It is true that the only question
necessarily under consideration was the Crown's
liability and its exoneration therefrom, and that it
was not necessary to consider the effect of the Crown
Grant under the Ordinance. But, as it appears from
the ninth paragraph of the Despatch, that the tenth
section of the 14th and 15th Vict., c. 86, taken in
connection with the fifty-first section of the 9th and
10th Vict., c. 382, was under consideration, and as
it appears from other parts of the Despatch that the
Ordinance had been submitted to the Law Advisers
of the Crown in England for their opinion, and as no
objection is made to the Ordinances as being in
conflict with the fifty-first section of the 9th and 10th
Vict., c. 382, it may not improperly be inferred that
the Law Advisers of the Crown were of opinion that
the Ordinance, in so far as it enacts that the Crown
Grant made under it should be a good conveyance
against all persons whatsoever, was not invalid or as
coupled with the said fifty-first section, where it
provides that notwithstanding any rule of law or
equity to the contrary prevailing in New Zealand or
elsewhere, the lands comprised in the conveyance
should continue and be subject to such equitable
estates, charges and liens, if any, created by the
purchaser named in the land order, or any person
deriving title from, through, or under such purchase.
If this inference is supported by the fact, if the Law
Advisers were of this opinion, it is probable that the
construction to be put upon the said fifty-first section,
suggested in a former part of this Memorandum, is
the one then adopted by the Law Advisers. Even
should this be so, as there would still be a doubt, it
is submitted that this is clearly a case for a declara-
tory Act.

(Signed) JAMES PRENDERGAST.
22nd April, 1867.

(No. 55.) Downing Street,
6th September, 1867.

SIR, I have been in communication with the Law
Officers of the Crown on the subject of your Des-
patch marked separate, of the 1st of June last,
relative to the true construction to be placed on
certain words contained in the fifty-first section of
the Imperial Act, 9th and 10th Victoriæ, cap. 382—
the New Zealand Company's Act.

I am advised that the construction suggested by
your Attorney-General (Mr. Prendergast) in the first
two paragraphs of page 3 of the printed memo-
randum which accompanied your Despatch, is correct.

Although the construction of the Act referred to
appears to Her Majesty's Government to be reason-
ably clear, the question is one by which many titles
may be affected; and as doubts have been entertained
and expressed, I shall take steps for submitting to
Parliament a declaratory Act with a view to quiet
such doubts.

I have, &c.,
BUCKINGHAM AND CHANDOS.
Governor Sir George Grey, K.C.B.