(10)

whom it may concern, that Her Majesty has
been graciously pleased to confirm and allow the
before-mentioned Ordinances.

Given under my Hand, and issued
under the Public Seal of the
Colony, at Government House,
(L. S.) Auckland, this twenty-first day
of January, in the year of Our
Lord One thousand eight hun-
dred and forty-six.

Lieutenant-Governor.

By His Excellency's Command,
ANDREW SINCLAIR,
Colonial Secretary.

GOD SAVE THE QUEEN!

Colonial Secretary's Office,
Auckland, 24th January, 1846.

HIS Excellency the Lieutenant-Governor
has given directions for the publication
of the following Despatch, with the question
and opinion subjoined, for general information.

By Command,
ANDREW SINCLAIR,
Colonial Secretary.

Downing Street,
8th August, 1845.

I enclose also the copy of an opinion of correspondence
with the New Zealand Company, on the subject
of the authority of the legislature of New Zealand,
as at present constituted, to impose taxes on
Her Majesty's subjects inhabiting

I enclose also the copy of an opinion on the
same subject, given for the information and
guidance of Her Majesty's Government, by the
Attorney and Solicitor-General, and by Sir
Thomas Wilde, who held the office of Attorney
General under the last Administration.

I departed from the usual course of proceeding
in obtaining the joint opinion of the past and the
present law officers of the Crown, partly on ac-
count of the magnitude and importance of the
principle in debate, and partly because Sir Thomas
Wilde (the only one of the former law officers
now remaining at the bar) had been consulted by
Lord John Russell when the charter for the go-
vernment of New Zealand was issued, and was,
therefore, peculiarly prepared to explain the
legal grounds on which that measure had been
taken, and on which it was to be defended.

You will see that the legal advisers of the
Crown entertain no doubt of the right of the
existing legislature of New Zealand to impose
taxes and duties on the Queen's subjects in-
habiting that colony. I have reason to know
that other lawyers of considerable authority,
and of great experience on such questions, fully
concur in the same opinion. I must, therefore,
conclude that Mr. Burge is in error in this case.

In the administration of the government of
New Zealand, you will take the joint opinion of
the Attorney and Solicitor-General, and of Sir
Thomas Wilde, as the rule for your guidance;
and if Mr. Burge's opinion should have been
made public there (as will probably have been
the case), you will give equal publicity to the
joint opinion of the three legal advisers of the
Crown, which I now transmit to you.

I have, &c.,
STANLEY.

QUESTION submitted for the Opinion of the
Attorney and Solicitor-General, and Sir Thomas
Wilde; and Opinion thereon:—

Whether, for the reasons assigned by Mr.
Burge, or for any other reason, there is
any sufficient ground to deny that the le-
gislature of New Zealand, as constituted
under the Act 3 and 4 Vict. c. 62, and Her
Majesty's charter of 16th November, 1840,
is competent to enact laws imposing duties
and taxes on Her Majesty's subjects in-
habiting the New Zealand Islands.

We are of opinion that the Legislative Coun-
cil of New Zealand, created by Her Majesty's
charter of the 16th November, 1840, has com-
petent authority to pass an Act imposing duties
and taxes upon the Queen's subjects inhabiting
that colony.

Although the Legislative Council is created
by the Queen's charter, the authority to impose
taxes is derived from the statute of 3 and 4
Vict. c. 62; and in order to form a correct
judgment as to the extent of the authority in-
tended to be granted by the Legislature, it is
proper to consider the object of the statute and
the circumstances under which it passed.

The statute authorized the Crown in its dis-
cretion to erect into an independent colony, any
dependencies of the colony of New South Wales;
and by sec. 3d, authority was also given to the
Crown to constitute a Legislative Council in any
such newly created colony, and power was given
to the Council to make and ordain all such laws
and ordinances as should be required for the
peace, order, and good government of the new
colony, the laws not being repugnant to the
law of England, but subject to certain directions
contained in the statute, which are immaterial
to the question submitted to us.

At the time this statute was passed, the colony
was a dependency of New South Wales, and
was subject to the legislative authority of a
Council nominated by the Crown under the
authority of 9 Geo. 4. There had been a pre-
vious statute, passed in 4 Geo. 4. c. 89, by which
it was enacted to be lawful for His Majesty to
constitute a Council, and that such Council
should have power and authority to make laws
and ordinances for the peace, welfare, and good
government of the colony, not being repugnant