New Zealand spectator, AND COOK'S STRAITS GUARDIAN. Saturday, October 18, 1845.

New Zealand Spectator and Cook's Strait Guardian, Volume II, Issue 54, 18 October 1845, Page 2

New Zealand spectator, AND COOK'S STRAITS GUARDIAN. Saturday, October 18, 1845.

It is reported of Lopez de "V ega, a famous Spanish poet, that the Bishop of Beller, being in Spain, asked him to explain one of his sonnets, which he said he had often read, but never understood. Lopez took up the sonnet, and after reading it several times, frankly acknowledged that he did not understand it himself ; a discovery which the poet probably never made before. Now we fancy that, were there any Bishops of Beller in New Zealand to put such a question, the Attorney General of this colony would often find himself in the predicament of the sonnetteer. In ambiguity, looseness, obscurity, vagueness — in short in all the various and diversified forms in which pure nonsense is exhibited, no sonnet that we have ever read, can equal the Ordinances of the Legislative Council of New Zealand. Dr. Campbell in his Philosophy of Rhetoric, on the subject of the Unintelligible in writing, has the following. " The cause of this fault in any writer, I take to be always one or other of the three following :, first, great confusion of thought, which is

commonly accompanied with intricacy of expression ; secondly, affectation of excellence in the diction; thirdly, a total want of meaning." We do not conceive Mr. Swainson to be fairly chargeable with the second of these faults — and in the following specimens taken at random from the book of Ordinances, we shall leave our readers to judge for themselves, whether the unintelligibility in each case, proceeds from great confusion of thought, or a total want of meaning. It cannot, surely, be objected to our anxiety in this matter, that the subject is beneath public consideration. The interests of fifteen thousand British subjects, as well as of the large native population are too deeply involved in the question, to render any enquiry respecting the mental acquirements of that gentleman out of place, or uninteresting to the community. In the Conveyancing Ordinance we find the following clause : — " 15. Any person not being named as a party to any deed may take an immediate benefit thereby, in the same manner as he might under a Deed Poll." This seems at a first glance easy and simple enough, and yet we are confident there is but one person in New Zealand that has the faintest conception of the meaning. In a late, case this clause was referred to, in an argument before Mr. Justice Chapman, but the four counsel engaged in it, severally declared their inability to fathom its meaning. The Judges themselves do not appear to be more successful, as Mr. Chapman after consulting ' Brother' Martin has altogether declined giving an\ explanation of it. This Ordinance is rich in blunders — down to the very last clause (56) which declares it to come into operation on the Ist March, 1842^ it having only passed the Legislative Council on the 28th December in the same year! This particular kind of blunder is not uncommon in these productions : for instance, in the Registration Ordinance at the commencement we read, that it was passed on the 28th December, 184:1— at the end, a year , later. I We cannot part with the Conveyancing Ordinance without bearing testimony to the able and masterly exposure of its errors^ both of commission and omission by a writer in the Neto Zealand Gazette, 3 1st May, 1843. County Courts Ordinance, clause 17. " The judgment of the Court shall be enforced in the first instance by sale of the goods and effects of i he defendant ; when the goods and effects of the defendant shall not suffice for payment of the sum recovered, including costs, the defendant may be imprisoned," &c. Really, a very hard case on the defendant. Mr. Swainson does not appear to contemplate the possibility of the defendant's gaining a verdict — in which case, the sale of his goods " in the first instance," to say no* thing of his subsequent incarceration, is surely rather a harsh proceeding. The Marriage Ordinance was generally J supposed to have been passed, in order to legalize a very numerous class of marriages in this colony; viz. — those performed by Catechists of the Church of England, It is singular enough, that this is almost the only class of marriages, which it does not legalize. The Ordinance being a short one, we shall give it entire — omitting the preamble, which is as loose as the rest of it. "1. All marriages heretofore solemnized, and all marriages hereafter to be solemnized by any Minister of any Christian denomination, who had not, or shall not, have received episcopal ordination, are, and shall, be, as good and valid, to all intents and purposes, as if the said minister solemnizing the same, had received such ordination." Under no reasonable construction can these words be made to include Church of England Catechists — since, in that Church at least, the order of Ministers is strictly defined to consist of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons. To neither of these classes do Catechists belong — and if not Ministers of the Church of England, they certainly are not Ministers of any other denomination. The following lucid passage is to be found in the Summary Proceedings Ordinance at clause 8 : — " All penalties, informations, and sums of money which shall be ordered to be paid by any j justice," &c, may be levied by distress and sale of the goods and chattels of the persons Ha- j ble to pay the same, &c. James, in one of his novels, says, " Sampson was a strong man, but he could not drink out of an empty pitcher." In the same

way we may doubt whether any Justice of the Peace, whatever may be the powers vested in him, could cause an information to be paid by distress and sale. In the first Municipal Corporation Ordinance, the 1 2th clause is to this effect : — "Be it enacted, that every person claiming the right of voting as aforesaid, shall at the time of preferring such claim, pay to the Returning Officer the sum of twenty shillings, which sum shall be accounted for, and deducted, or returned, as the case may be, from any rate which may afterwards be assessed upon such claimant." As no rate was ever assessed by the Corporation while it was in existence, it is clear, that the members are liable under this clause, to be called on to refund the whole amount of what they received as qualification fees. It will be in the recollection of our readers, that owing to the extraordinary ambiguity of clauses, 14, 31, and 39 and the difference of opinion that existed as to the meaning, the Corporation retained their seals after their term was intended to expire ; and no fresh election having taken place in time, the Corporation itself lapsed ! Clause 7 of Public Roads Ordinance is as follows :—: — " It shall a'so he determined by the Meeting, in like manner, whether any T 11s shall be imposed upon the passage of wheeled carriages along any road within the District, and also what shall be the amount thereof, and at what place or places such Tolls shall be levied. Provided always, that the amount of Toll to be taken in any one day in respect of any wheeled caniage shall not exceed the whole amount of Rate or Rates actudly levied during the preceding year, in respect of any one acre of land, and shall, under no ciicumstances, exceed the sum of sixpence on any one day for any one such caniage." Fi-om the careless wording of this clause, it is evident, that for one whole year after this Ordinance shall come into operation, no tolls whatever can be levied upon any wheeled carriage ! We have on a former occasion exposed the disgraceful manner in which the Imprisonment for Debt Ordinance is drawn up ; and the serious and unforeseen consequences inevitable on its coming into operation in its present shape. The County Court Ordinance, clause 22, stating that the decision of the judge is to be final on all questions, goes on thus : — "Nevertheless it shall be lawful for the Judge, upon the application of any of the parties tcS the suit, made immediately upon the delivery ofyhe judgment, to reserve for the opinion of the {"Supreme Court, any point of law upon which such judgment may directly depend ; in which case execution shall not issue until the opinion of the Supreme Court shall have been pronounced." Thus, should a defendant succeed in raising a sufficiently plausible objection to get the case reserved for the opinion of the Supreme Court, there is no obligation on him to prosecute the matter further ; and the plaintiff must either incur the trouble and expence of bringing it before the Supreme Court himself; or abandon his judgment! This clause is repeated in the Court of Requests Ordinance at clause 11. We think that the few, the very few instances we have here brought forward, are sufficient to justify the terms in which we have characterized these bungling attempts at legislation . If we look to the fate of these Ordinances, a result no less surprising, appears. Of the six Ordinances passed in the first Session of the Legislative Council, one only is now in foree — the Land Claims Ordinance, and that has been amended, but the amending Ordinance disallowed. Nineteen Ordinances were passed in the second Session — out of which five have been disallowed — six have been amended — one repealed — one suspended — three (including one of the amended) have not yet been Gazetted as allowed or disallowed — and those i that have been allowed, and are now in force las passed, are the following: — the Copyright, Raupo House, and Marriage Ordinances, acd the one repealing a former Ordinance, rendering the Ordinances of New South Wales applicable here. In Session 3. out of twenty one Ordinances passed, fourteen are for the purpose of amending, explaining, or repealing former Ordinances — three are for the benefit of the Natives — two for Revenue purposes — one for the exclusive benefit of dogs — and one for the Relief (?) of debtors. Of the amending Ordinances, one has already been repealed. In Session 4. two Ordinances were passed, one merely to confirm certain Rules of the

Supreme Court — the other imposing a tar upon property, which has been since repealed. Session 5. There were eight public Ordinances passed in this session. A Militia Ordinance — one for the appropriation of an imaginary revenue (passed appropriately enough, on the Ist of April) — a Crown Grants Ordinance — another Appropriation Ordinance — one repealing the solitary Ordinance of the previous session — a Public Roads Ordinance — a Fines for Assault Ordinance — and one for bringing into operation certain Acts of the Imperial Parliament, of the concents of which no clue is afforded, the titles only being given ! It will be seen by this, that the laws or this colony are in a perpetual state of mutation. They reach a certain half-formed chrysalis state, but never attain to maturity. Before they come into full operation — sometimes before they are even known in these settlements — they are either amended, repealed, of disallowed. At the distance that the seat of Government is from the bulk of the population, it is impossible for any one to conjecture with any degree of confidence what is, or what is not, the law. When the Legislative Council are not employed in concocting " Dog Bills," " Copyright Ordinances," or such like contemptible or absurd acts, they are busily engaged in what they are pleased to term " amending" the acts of the previous session. These, it will be admitted, are grave ana serious evils; but they are not the only ones. The whole of these Ordinances are constructed upon what may be termed the shorthand principle of legislation. The very fewest words which can suffice to express, or even to indicate the meaning of the legisla- ! tor are employed, leaving the rest to be deduced by the skill and ingenuity, caprice or partiality of the judge o\ magistrate by whom the Ordinance is to be applied. But this style of legislation especially demands an acute, practised, vigorous and comprehensive mind ; capable of clearly distinguishing, and as clearly expressing, that which is really essential; a mind in short, the very reverse of that possessed by Mr. Attorney General Swain^on. From' the hands of that gentleman these Ordinances have issued loose, obscure, ungrammatical, and sometimes positively without meaning at all, — while- in order to give them operation, a corresponding looseness of interpretation on the part of magistrates and judges is absolutely required. So far, therefore, as the property or rights of any individual are affected by these laws, a degree of uncertainty and insecurity is introduced, in the highest degree prejudicial. So serious indeed, would this last evil become, that we should invite the whole colony to join witn us in representions on the subject, were we not convinced, that the first £ct of Mr. Swainson's successor will be, tdr' amend" by repealing such of that gentlemen's Ordinances, as have not received their coup de grace from the Home Government. If Mr. Swainson's incompetency a& a legislator is so glaring, his unfitness as an adviser is equally conspicuous. The very first occasion which occurs of the exercise of his talents in this line, elicited the following ominous reprimand from Lord Stanley : — "Mr. Swainson must be apprised, that neither he, nor any other person whi shall oppose this fundamental principle of your government, can be permitted to act any longer as a public officer under the Queen's commission." Now, we put it to Mr. Swainson's legal acumen, whether the Debenture Ordinance and the Customs Abolition (both of which he sanctioned, if he did not advise) do not each of them constitute (in reference to the Charter of this colony) as direct an opposition to the " fundamental principles," as the denial of the Queen's right of territory above referred to by Lord Stanley ?

Port of Wellington. — An account of the number and tonnage of vessels that have entered inwards and cleared outwards at this Pott, from the 6th July to the 10th October, 1845, inclusively. Entered Inwards, 60 vessels. . . . 2,807 tons. Cleared Outwards, 59 2,969 do. John Macarthy, Harbour Master. Wellington, October 15th 1845.

Wellington M ARKETs,RetailPrices,Oct. 1 8, 1845.— First flour, £17 to £20 per ton; Bread, per 2 lb. loaf, 5d. ; Beef, 6d. to Bd. per lb. Mutton, 7d. to lOd. per lb. Pork, 3d, to 4d, per lb. ; Fowls, per pair, 35. ; Ducks, per pair, ss. ; Geese, Bs. each; Turkeys, 7s. each ; Fresh butter, Is. 4d. per lb. ; Salt butter, Is. 2d. per lb. ; Potatoes, £2:10s. per ton ; Eggs, Is. per dozen^

Cheese, New Zealand, Is. per lb. ; Bathurst, Bd. per lb. ; Maize, 3s. 3d. per bushel ; Ale, Is. Bd. per gallon; Ham and Bacon, 7d. to Bd. per lb. : Firewood, per cord, 12s.