Correspondence.

Lyttelton Times, Volume VII, Issue 441, 24 January 1857, Page 7

Correspondence.

To tlie Editor of the Lyttelton Times. 'Sir, —As there are,many electors in the province who do not take the ' Canterbury, Standard.' I think the Government are not justified in-confining all (or nearly so) official notices, to that paper; for instance, the Election, which is fixed for the 29th instant, is not noted iv the 'Lyttelton Times,' and many aie ignorant of the day. If money is wanted for extra printing, let some of our officials be content with less pay and more work. Yours Respectfully, A. B.

To the Editor of the ' Lyttelton Times.' Sir, —I hope you will not refuse me. room in your columns for some observations upon the extract which you published on Saturday, from the 'Wellington Independent,' about the Legislative Council. Ido not think that it ought to be allowed to pass altogether unnoticed. For, although the views put forward in it are not supported by any clear or - intelligible process of reasoning, still, as is generally the case when the ' Independent'- employs' its best hands, there is, in the present instance, so great an amount of fun and humour in the strictures passed upon the {Legislative Council that the real merits of. the question at issue between that body and the Pachalick of Wellington are likely to-be lost sight'of. These strictures afford, a good specimen of tlie vices and excellencies of the Wellington style of discussion— clear, amusing, and plausible—not much to be depended upon, either for the depth and sound-' ness of the theories propounded,, or.for the accuracy of the information given. More calculated to raise a laugh at the expense of opponents than to convince them by force of argument. Rather dictatorial—not very dignified—and somewhat in bad taste. From these peculiarities it happens that the writer of the article in question, instead of arguing against the principles upon which the Legislative Council was established—instead of examining the purpose' which the institution of a second chamber is intended to serve, and then showing that the Legislative Council does not answer to that purpose—thinks he has proved his case when he has drawn some amusing caricatures "of the, persons who compose that body. Now, I believe, were it worth while to' do so, that occurrences quite as laughable and caricatures quite as amusing might-be collected by a stranger in the gallery of the House of Representatives as any given in the article with respect to the Legislative.Council. The question however, is not, which body make? itself most ridiculous, but, whether both arc not necessary for sound and useful legislation.' Now, in arguing this matter, I need not attempt to prove the value of an elective house. ,The writer of the article is already sufficiently convinced of this; in fact, he believes in nothing else. He is a man of one idea, and that idea is that a popular assembly is the perfection of wisdom and talent. A doubt as to the infallibility of an elected House appears to be, in his eyes, a heresy no less hopeless than a doubt formerly was as to the infallibility of the pope. A belief in this dogma is his test of orthodoxy. It is the • drticuhis stantis vel cadeniis Ecclesice. Our political Torquemada does not see that .there may be .-value in opposing opinions; that the very conflict between minds castin different moulds and guided by different instincts may be productive of good; that it may be wise to look at questions of importance from various points of view; and, moreover, that root and branch legislation has seldom proved, successful, and very rarely beneficial; and accordingly, it has been found very desirable in constitutional countries that the impulsive and

somewhat imaginative disposition peculiar to an I elective assembly" should be checked and restrained ' by' a body' deriving its'origin from another source. But, if this is true in'ordinary matters of legislation, if these checks and restraints are-beneficial;in questions of minor importance, surely they become' indispensably necessary- when an'alteration- in the criminal jurisprudence ,of the country and the mode of punishing the most serious offences is the question in debate. It has ever been considered essential _to the safety of individuals and the preservation of, freedom in a,state that extraordinary precautions should be taken'for guarding against the dangers which unavoidably attend the power of inflicting.punishments : "and," to use the words of De Lolme, "it is'particularly when considered iii this'light1 that the trial by jury proves ari admirable institution." Now, to apply this prinoiple to the two bills, the rejection of which by the Legislative Council is adduced as a proof of the incapacity of that body. First,'-the- District Courts Bill proposed to erect a court of judicature, the jurisdiction of .which was to extend, except in the case of eighteen special offences, to the infliction of any punishment short of hanging and transportation for life. Now, I think that that care and anxiety which the laws-of England, evince on behalf of an accused person .was imperatively demanded before a tribunal,, ckfthed with these enormous powers was established. It has been thought, as/1 have, already said, io be,one of the chief safeguards provided by those laws against the condemnation of an innocent man, that a person charged with a serious offence shall not be convicted ,or punished unless a jury of twelve men agree in pronouncing him guilty. A fundamental maxim in this trial by jury being that these twelve men should be unanimous in. their verdict, that_as,long as one out.of the twelve dissents no verdict can be given and no punishment inflicted. - It is, further, considered conducive to the proper administration of justice that the judge presiding over a court which has the power of trying, serious offences should.have some knowledge of law. • Both these fundamental principles were disregarded in the.District Courts Bill. It- abolished the trial by jury and did not require that the judge should be a lawyer. I say it abolished the trial by jury, because it did .away with that essential requisite of such a trial without which it becomes ■ a totally different institution, by dispensing with the unanimity of the jurors. Instead of a-jury of twelve, whose unanimous assent is necessary to a conviction, it established a jury of four, three of whom could give a verdict which was to have 1 the same effect as if they had all assented. A , trial of this kind, you will observe, is not a trial by jury in the common acceptation of the term. This District Courts Bill jury is a very different institution from that known to the English law by the same name. It may be very wise to abolish trial by jury altogether ; I have heard this doctrine broached; but this is not now the question. What I object to, and what the Legislature objected to in the District Courts Bill was, that it was sought .to. do this by a side wind. To do away with the reality and to retain the name —to "give us the shadow and take away the substance. It was thought that such an alteration in the law ought to be made in the face of day, broadly and avowedly. That a deed like this ought not to be done in the dark. -1 will not detain you long' about the Purity of Elections Bill; the reasons for its rejection were analogous to' those which operated in the other case. It seemed calculated to interfere unnecessarily with the liberty of the subject, while no reasons were adduced for the necessity of enacting so stringent a measure. The amount of -consideration with which it was favoured by the House of Representatives may be gathered from the time it took in passing through all'its stages in that House—about 48 hours —having been read a first time on July 30th, and passed August Ist: ' I had a few words to say about the history of the District Courts Bill and its adventures in the House of Representatives, but I have already trespassed too long upon your columns. Your obedient Servant, Henry John Tancred.

To the Editor of the Lyttelton Times. Sir, —Had your correspondent ' W. C. Beswick' been in possession of the text of the many treaties made of late years between the Crown of , England and Foreign Powers for the mutual protection of their commerce and

shipping, he wouldnotbe—atleast he-ought not to be— quite' so positive in laying down the law regarding deserters from Foreign ships. I think, if he will extend his study of general and special laws bearing on the subject, he will become somewhat doubtful of the soundness of his first conclusions. I am, Sir,. Your Obedient Servant Incredulous.

To the Editor of the Lyttelton Times. ■ Sir, —I think the following tacts of a case which was lately heard by the Waste Lands Board, may be useful to be generally known, inasmuch as they furnish an example of what may happen at the Land Office, and of the practice of the Board in such cases. '" About September, 1853, Captain Harvey purchased from Mr. W. G. Brittan his interest in 2,500 acres «f pasturage, being'a portion of apiece of which he was the licensee; the consideraiion being a sum of money paid down and'an agreement by Captain Harvey to pay yearly to Mr. Briton such a part of his whole rent as was applicable to the acreage held by Captain Harvey. • For tbe purpose of using certain Pre-emptive Rights of Captain Harvey's which had been laid down within the portion of the run purchased by him, it was arranged that these rights should be transferred to v Mr. Brittan, " conditionally until the expiration of his leas>e." This transfer is so noted in the Land Office Register. The practice agreed to at the time, and which has since- been acted upon, -was ; That Mr. Brittan should pay the premium due year by year upon these Pre-emptive Rights, take credit, for the sum paid, in reauction of the ..whole rent of his run, and thar, after the payment had been made to the Land Office, Captain Harvey should-refund as well for the Pre emptive Rigln Licenses as for any other sum which might be payable by h:m.. In September, 1856, a year's rent of Mr. Brittan's run becamepayable. Mr. Brittan, who was at that lime the Treasurer of the Watte Lands Board and one of the Commissioners, omitted to renew the Preemptive Right Licenses referred to. Captain Harvey was not informed of. Mr. Brittan's intention to discontinue the practice which he had "hitherto always followed.

About the sth October, Mr. Brittan, who then was "or shortly aftenyaids became thu Chief Commissioner of the Waste Lands Board, in the Land Office intimated to Captain Harvey^ and myself that he had paid the rei't of'the run, and requested the repayment of Captain Harvey's share. When asked what sum was due, he was unable to state it, and referred us to Mr. Fooks. Mr. Fooks also said lie could not tell just then what was due, "it was a matter of shillings" and be would let me knowsome other time when he should see me in the Land Office. I may observe that the applications for repayment generally came through Mr. Fooks. On several occasions, soon after, I asked the amount due and received similar repliesl Captain Harvey left this Settlement for England on the 9tli October. It may be remarked that, under the ciicumst„nces, neither Captain Harvey nor his agent could possibly know what was the sum due, excepting through Mr. Brittan, ; About the middle of November, Mr. Brittan informed Mr.- Gressou, who is Captain Harvey's Attorney here, that the run in question, which was then being advertised to let, no longer belonged to Captain Harve}', and that it had ceased to be his in consequence of the rent not having i.een paid. He at .the same time refused to, state what the rent amounted to. About the latter end of December, Mr. Gresson and myself learnt for the fir^t time, by an accidental reference to the subject in the Land Office, that Mr, Brittan bad omitted to renew the Pre-emptive Right Licenses. An offer to pay was made by one -of us to Mr. Fooks the Secretary of the Waste Lands Board. jThe, answev was that the tiiitf had gone by for paymsnt and that he could not receive it. On the following Board day, Mr. Ihittan applied to the Waste Lands Board to declare the land formerly covered by those Pre-emptive Rights to be within his run, upon the ground that the Rights had lapsed, not having been renewed at the proper time. Mr., Gresson, who was accidentally present, requested' that he might be heard on the part of Captain Harvey as against the application. The Board refused this, and granted Mr. Brittan's application. A few days after, Mr. Gresson applied to show cause why the decision of the Boaid shou'd be reversed ; this was permitted, and the case was gone into on Thursday, the Sth inst. Evidence was adduced sustaining all the facts before stated. Mr. Brittan admitted them gene=rally. Mr. Brittan also admitted that he had purposely avoided to renew Captain Haivey's Pre-en.piive Rights, and that he had also purposely avoided

informing Captain Harvey of his intention not to renew them. Mr. Brittan justified-these acts of bad faith by alleging that that " Captain Harvey was a disagreer.hle neighbour," that he wrote offensive letters to Mr. Burke when Mr. Burkes sheep went into his garden, and offered several explanations of" similar importance. He admitted also specifically that he had done what he had done with a view of putting an end to his connection with Captain Harvey. The Board decided that such a case as this was, not contemplated by the Waste Land Regulations ; that Mr. Brittan appeared' to have acted in the matter as Captain Harvey's Agent, and the Board could not, interefere as between Principal and Agent; and the Board did not consider the default of the Agent in the case to furnish that.kind of "good and sufficient cause" for the non-payment.of re,nt which the 51st section of the Waste Lands Regul*--tions contemplates. . • Such,are generally the facts of, the case. I prefer to state them without comment, and will only observe that it will doubtless appear strange to those of your readers who may take any interest in the matter that the, Treasurer and Chief Commissioner of the Waste Lands Board should, in the exercise of his office, omit to do what was necessary for the protection of those rights of another which he had' pledged himself to guard, while at the same time he hindered that other person from doing those necessary acts for himself. It may also be worth noting that the Waste Lands Board appears to be powerless to remedy a wrong which has been done by its Chief Officer. ..Your Obedient Servant, ■if. I. Cridland.