ORIGINAL CORRESPONDENCE.

New Zealand Spectator and Cook's Strait Guardian, Volume IX, Issue 875, 21 December 1853, Page 3

ORIGINAL CORRESPONDENCE.

To the Editor of the New Zealand Spectator. Wellington, December 16tb, 1853, Sir, — The Honorable tbc Provincial Secretary. Mr. Fiizherhert, having in the Council, on the discussion whether their proceedings are to be styled " Ordinance*" or " Acts," rather rudely, I thought, challenged anybody to give a definition of the word ordinance, hare been induced to be* stow a thought or two on the subject ; and I will, Mr. Eiliior, give you the result of my cogitations. Having a deiire to understand the matter thoroughly, I have spoken to several parties thereon, and it is agretd that the Provincial Secretary was in error when by stated that no deanition could be

i given, at least out of the Council, of the term ors dinance. The challenge of the hon. gentleman - seems to imply that he has asked his colleague, i »he Solicitor tor the Province, for such definition, and that he is unable to gi?e one. No one is • surprised that tha learned legal adviser should i not he able to give a definition, as it is well i known he was not educated for the proftssion, • and was not even articled. How he obtained his , admission to practice in New Zealand is a ques- I lion I do not intend to moot, although 1 fancy ( ; he must himself feel soraerimrs surprised at the mode by which such a st<p was obtained. As to the question " Ordinance" or "Act,"! have talked it over with some of the legal gentlemen here, who are reputed at least to have ■ something more than common sense, and the explanations given by them why the term Ordinance • should be used to style the proceedings of the Provincial Council, and why " Act" for the General Assembly, seem satisfactory and intelligible ; but it would take up too much of your space, even if I were capable of doing so, to set oat tlie same in detail. I will not attempt if. But let us look it the term ordinance in its common acceptation, and we shall find that it is the proper term to be used ; — it is evidently derived from the Latin word ordinatio, and as the Provincial Secretary has the reputation of being a latin scholar, although 1 cannot say much for his knowledge of English grammar, as displayed by him in the Council on the above Question, he may be brought to understand the meaning of the term "Ordinance" and the difference between it •nd "Act." On turning to Ordinance in the English portion of the Latin dictionary, I find thus: — "An Ordinance— law, decree, or statute, — decretum, statutum, edict um, institutum, placitum, constitutio, prascriptum." The latin term or word Oidinatio is not given. "An Ordinance made with a penalty sanctio." "An ordinance proposed — Rogatio." — This may be considered as equivalent to the English term Bill. " An ordinance made by the people without a Senate — Plebiscitum." " An Ordinance made by the Senate — Senates Consultum." On turning to the Latin portion of tbe Dictionary, I find thus ;—; — " Ordinatio — an Ordination, tn Ordinance, Appointing, &c." So that the term Ordinatio, from which Ordinance ia derived, does not mean a*aw. Tbe English law has adopted tbe term Ordinance, and it meant, as far *s I can understand, a law passed by a Legislative body which is liable to be coo trolled or superseded by a superior Legislative body. The three Latin terms — Rogatio, FlehiscHum, and Senatus Consultum, will apply to the position of the Provincial Council and General Assembly. Rogatio, being the Bill ; Plebiscitum, such Bill when passed by the Provincial Council ; and Senatus Consultum, when passed by the General Assembly. The English language has no intermediate term as Piebiscitum, except the word Ordinance, and it is in that sense it is nsed. The proceedings ©f the Provincial Council are all subject to be controlled or superseded by tbe General Assembly, and in that sense are properly termed Ordinances ; being laws mads by one Legislative body liable to he eoutrolled or superseded by another Legislative body having superior powers. It is admitted by all part if s that it is unobjectionable to style tbe proceedings of the Provincial Council Ordinances ; if so, why not adopt the safest course.and use that term or style,rather than raise difficulties and doubts by using the term 11 Acts." It ran only be from a motive of pride that the Executive of this Province insist upon using the term "Acts," assuming to themselves powers which the Constitution Act does not appear to give them. — Are the public to suffer from this pride ? I am, Sir, Your obedient servant, C.

To the Editor of the New Zealand Spectator. Wellington, Dec. 19, 1853. Sir, — I retd with astonishment in the Independent of Saturday last the following.- — " While hundreds of speeches have been delirered, not one subject of interest to the public in general has been discussed. This will continue to be tbe case so long as Mr. Wakefield is allowed to make long speeches where no question is before the House, and so long as he continues to make from ten to twenty speeches every sitting. The Appropriation Bill, Loan Bill, Road Bill, and Fencing Bill will be before the Council next week, they are all of the greatest importance, and we would invite therefore the public to watch carefully from whom obstruction to the progress of these measures will come." In connection with the above I have hsard it stated tpenly within the last day or two, by the partisans of the late Faction, the majority of whom are now in the Council, «hat we can do nothing in the Council nntil Mr. E. G. Wakefield is got rid of — and further, that there is a conspiracy against the Provincial Solicitor Mr. Brandon. I wilJ ask the public through your columns, who if the author of the above quotation from the Independent? It can only have been written by some member of the Council or dictated by him. This I think is apparent from its peculiar phraseology, — and if so written, it comes from one of the late Faction who are well known to be peculiarly hostile to Mr. E. 6. Wakefield. It is evidently written with the view of creating an impression that Mr. Wakefield is an obstructive. I cannot however compliment the author on bis taste, an! if he really has not been interested in any cne discussion in the Council, his intellect must be very obtuse, or be is so violent a partisan that be allows his judgment to be biassed and regards discussions which have been interesting, some of them in a very high degree, as doll and insipid. I have no doubt Mr. Editor that many of the discussions have been of a painful nature to the two gentlemen forming the Executive for the Wellington Province — but why have they been to ? The Independent is desirous of fixing the public attention upon Mr. E. Q. Wakefield* as an obstructive, and invites the' public to watch carefully from whom obstruction comes. We all concur in this, and being of one mind on this topic let us see who are the real obstructives. And I ask the public through your columns —

Who are the parties that have hitherto caused the obstructions complained of '9 \ answer the Provincial Secretary and his colleague, the learned legal adviser for the Province of Wellington. I m«y here remark tint I am watching Mr. E. G. Wakefield's conJurt perhaps *$ narro*'y as most people, for I am desirous of awer aining bis real views and intentions. I am not one of bis partisans, bvit t have a sincere desire to see the public business conducted with energy, propriety, and wisdom, without reference to party ; and in stating tbat the Secretary and Solicitor for the Province are the real obstructives, I am not actuated hy any feeling of enmity against those gentlemen individually; — but I take their Conduct in the Council and out of it as the grounds upon which I conclude such answer. l*he writer of the Independent, and so would there two gentlemen, be glad, using a vulgar phrase, to smash Mr. E. G. Wakefield~but their line of policy will not tut the ground from Under him as they pompously put it abroad, nor will it drive him from the Council Room a* the learned gentleman conceits to himself he effected, but it will have the contrary effect ; it will elevate Mr. E. G. Waßefield in the estimation of those who require the services of one who ii thoroughly acquainted with the work he has to do» We can only look at him as he now conducts himself, and I for one see little to rind fault with in him. I pot it to the public whether there is not the most striking contrast in the Council in the demeanour and character of all these gentlemen f Whether Mr-. E. G. Wakefield has not exhibited propriety, wisdom, arid temper, and whether the Secretary and Solicitor have not exhibited the reverse ? It is painful to attach blame to any one-^-but are these two gentlemen blameless — have they trot shown themselves to be vindictive, irresolute, vacillating, wavering, having no fixed plans — rather proposing measures with the chance of their being set right, if wrong, tban taking the least pains and trouble to bring in such measures as perfect and as legal as can be ? Are they not hazarding their credit and risking their reputation as men of business and judgment ? Let the public con* sider theie matteis faitly and justly, without reference to party feeling, and when they find who are the real obstructives, let them not be afraid, but let their voices be heard, and if requinte, have the conduct of the Executive publicly discussed. Why not have a committee to watch the proceedings of the Council X If the Independent was sincere in the article first qnoted, why did be not notice the debate which took place last Friday in the Council on the Empowering Mil? Was he afraid or ashamed to do ao ? Who was the obstructive then ? Not Mr. E. G, Wakefield. Not Mr. Commissioner Bell, the member for Wairarapa— nor any of the Independent members— but the very framer of the Bill, the learned Solicitor for the Province — who, on the debate in Committee was so obtuse or so obstinate tbat he would not be convinced that he had framed bis Bill in error, and positively refused the aid and assistance that vr»* offered to him on the occasion. Every one mutt admire the forbearance with which Mr. Wakefield treated the learned gentleman on the occasion, and his perfect good temper, patience, and discretion, in goiug through the several Ordinances, in order to show Mr. Brandon that he had made several mistakes iv the Bill. A, id Mr. Wakefield made a suggestion, that the learned gentleman shouM alter the fruire of the Bill and specify particular'y the powers it was intended to give the Superintendent, so that the Council might knovr what they were doing, and not legislate in the dark, and pass laws haphazard as to whether they would be allowed or not. This teemed so reasonable a suggestion that it was a matter of remark that it was not acceded to by Mr. Brandon ; — but no, tbat learned gentleman conceived his production to be too good to be got rid of altogether — it had tost him too much labour, and although after much pains be could only produce a mouse, in the shape of an Empowering Bill, he could not part wiih it ; — it bad been a pet undertaking and he would not give it vp — in fact he felt that his legal position was at stake. But what did he do ? Instead of compromising the matter and agreeing to look further into the subject, be stood at bay with a petulance of manner that Mr. Bell, who is well known to be one of his friends, could not brook, but explained to the Council that be had spoken privately to Mr, Brandon on the subject of the Bill requiring amendment, but that he would not amend it. In fact he was so impenetrable on the debate, that Mr. Wakefield, after tome pains to convince him of his mistakes exclaimed, " how I wish I could say something that would penetrate the learned gentleman." But it was no go. Mr. Bell then brought him to task for bringing in a Bill which wai neither carefully nor legally pre* pared, and told him that be had privately pointed out to him two mistakes (one of which he admitted) and tbat after hearing Mr. Wakefield, instead of two there might be two dozen mistakes, and told the learned gentleman tbat he was putting the Council into a stupid position and himself into a more stupid position. Notwithstanding all this, the learned gentleman insisted he was right, and that the honorable gentlemen his opponents would find on consideration that all their objections would crumble into dust. He made this observation with so ungracious an air, and with such contortions of body and fice tbat I could not help smiling. Poor deluded little man, be expressed his hopes — but his fears— what are they ? Can they be loss of office and reputation ? For if he is in error, what incapacity and want of judgment has he not shewn throughout the proceedings. His colleague the Provincial Secretary must feel that he is not the proper person either to advise or to defend the proceedings of Government. How can the public suppose otherwise when the Provincial Secretary stated at the close of the debate on the Empowering Bill tbat, he felt great gratification at what had taken place, as it shewed tbat the members were independent, and that they were determine 1 to investigate fully the matters that were brought forward by the Government. In conclusion Mr. Editor, for 1 must not take up more of your space, I now as>k the public, Ihrough you, who are the obstructives? Wat Mr. Fiizherbert's frivolous question to Mr. Wakefield, and the debate thereon, an obstruction? Before putting this question should not Mr. Fitzherbert have looked at his owu conduct ? Was the reply framed by Mr. Fitzherbert to the address an obstruction ? seeing that he waived it, and adopted the one framed by Mr, Wakefield?

I Have not most of the suggestions nude by Mr. Ujkefield b-eo a 'opfe.J h v M. Fi'zherberl ? Can these I* considered « obstructions f Hive they not «!w«ys been m«dn courteously and in tfoid temper ? . Is it not the fact that without Mr. Wakefield'n , assistance the Council as at present constitoted would have committed serious erils ? Can be be considered an obstructire in pre Tenting these t I say no. On the contrary the thanks of the community are due to Mr. E. G. Wakefield for his taluable assistance in the Council, and I put it to the public to deal with that gentleman as be demeans himself therein, and not to give ear to all |he reports which are industriously circulated against him. Let those who circulate these reports look to their own conduct. It may be they Wl ?i no \s e"ih?e "i h ? B*Cr,°,tiDy8 * Cr ,°, tiDy of P° blic °P ini °n « well as Mr. Wakefield. I remain, Mr. Editor, Yours obediently, CAUSTIC.