ORIGINAL CORRESPONDENCE. To the Editor of the New Zealand Spectator, Wellington, December 22, 1853.

New Zealand Spectator and Cook's Strait Guardian, Volume IX, Issue 876, 24 December 1853, Page 3

ORIGINAL CORRESPONDENCE. To the Editor of the New Zealand Spectator, Wellington, December 22, 1853.

Sir, — I read with gome pleasure the letter of Caustic in your yesterday's paper; and afterwards-, on reading th« Independent, I found that the obteivation of Caustic, tbtt the Provincial Secretary must feel that his colleague, the Provincial Solicitor for Wellington, it »ojt (lie proper person either to advise or to de/en4 the proceedings of Government, borne out by tba Independent's report ol the Secretary** speech on the Empowering Bill in committee : and as the Independent i# the orgao af t|ie Provincial Gorcrnmenr, it« report of

such speech miy be taken as admitted by them to be correct. Mr. Fi»zh»rlert is reported to say — " Jf,upon examination, it should be found that subjects in stick a voluminous mass of legislation had been incorporated in the bill which ought to have bbkn put in the list of excelled ordinances thky MUST PLACE IT TO THEIR INSUFFICIENCY O» knowledge AniJ experience, aAd not from any desire to usurp powers with which they could not by the constitution interfere." What do we see here ? That the Provincial Secretary actually plac-s the errors of the legal adviser to "insufficibnct of knowledge and experience." Are these a sufficient justification for errors ? Would they be admitted by the court in which the legal gentleman practises ? We know to the contrary; for that court fixed otic of the solicitois here for something like insufficiency of knowledge and experience. Are the public to pay the learned legal gentleman for what the Provincial Secretary calls his insufficiency of knowledge and experience? If the legal gentleman has not been properly educated, is he to be made sufficient in knowledge and experience at the expense of the public ? Is he, in fact, to be articled to the public ? — for it appears be never was articled to a solicitor. We may well have errors, if gentlemen not properly brought up aod educated for the law are appointed to b« the legal advisers of Superintendents. I am, Sir, Your obedient servant, OBSERVER.