(11,

to the laws of England, nor to certain other
matters therein contained.

That statute, in s. 27, provided and enacted
that no tax should be imposed by the Council
upon the vessels trading with the colony or the
dependencies thereof, nor upon goods imported
or exported, nor any other tax, except only
such as should be necessary for local purposes.
This clause of restriction operates as a legislative
exposition that by the previous words a general
power of taxation had been conferred, otherwise
this restriction was nugatory and useless.

The statute 4 Geo. 4, expired on the 31st
December, 1829; and on the 25th July, 1828,
the 9 Geo. 4, c. 83, passed, which recited that
it was expedient to repeal the before-mentioned
statute 4 Geo. 4, but we do not find that in fact
it was repealed, but it seems to have been left
to expire; and by the 9 Geo. 4, c. 83, s. 20, a
new power is given to the Crown to create a
Council for New South Wales and its depen-
dencies; and by s. 21 the same power is given
to that Council as had been conferred on the
Council 4 Geo. 4, and containing in s. 25 a
restriction of the power to taxation for local
purposes, but omitting the restraint in regard to
taxation upon exports and imports; and New
Zealand was subject to the legislative authority
of the Council appointed under the 9 Geo. 4,
at the time the 3 and 4 Vict. passed.

The Council appointed under the 9 Geo. 4,
was in no respect a representative body, and the
only power of taxation given to the Council is
comprised in the words above quoted; and it is
manifested by s. 25, (the restrictive clause),
that the Legislature had intended to give the
power of taxation by the previous general words,
otherwise, as before stated, the restriction would
have been nugatory and useless. The object of
the statute 3 and 4 Vict. c. 62, was, as before
stated, to enable the Crown to erect into an in-
dependent colony any of the dependencies of
New South Wales, and, as appears by the re-
cital, to appoint a Legislative Council of the
same character as that which existed in New
South Wales, and to the powers of which New
Zealand was then subject, and for the same
purposes; that is, to make laws and ordinances
for the peace, welfare, and good government of
the colony to be newly created; and power is
given to the New Zealand Council to be nom-
inated by the Crown, in precisely the same
words as those which had conferred the power
of taxation upon the Council of New South
Wales.

We therefore are of opinion, that the power to
make laws and ordinances for the peace, order,
and good government of the colony of New
Zealand, conferred upon the Council the power
of taxation for local purposes. In some statutes
a power to impose taxes has been given to local
legislatures in express terms in addition to
general words, such as those contained in the
statute in question; and in other statutes, after
the use of similar general words, a restriction
has been inserted limiting the power to impose
taxes to certain specified purposes. But we
think that the power to impose taxes has always
been deemed to be conferred by, and comprised
within, the same words as are used in the 3 and
4 Vict. c. 62, or words of similar import, and
that such power has been generally exercised
without being questioned; and we are of opi-
nion, that such words are usual, apt, and proper
words to confer the power.

We are also of opinion, that the construction
of such words is not governed nor in any re-
spect depend upon the nature of the constitution
of the legislative body to which they are applied,
but that they equally confer the power of taxa-
tion upon a legislative body nominated by the
Crown under the authority of an Act of Parlia-
ment, as they bestow upon a legislative body
which may possess more or less of a representa-
tive character.

We have duly considered the opinion of Mr.
Burge, with all the respect due to the authority
of that gentleman, before we arrived at the
conclusion we have stated. We agree with Mr.
Burge, that in determining upon the authority
of the legislature of New Zealand, the point to
be considered is the construction of the statute
of 3 and 4 Vict. c. 62, but we cannot concur in
the opinion that the construction of the statute
is at all affected by the principles of the common
law to which he refers. The power conferred
by the statute may be well collected from what
is therein declared to be the object of the enact-
ment, which was the general government of the
colony, and from the language in which the au-
thority of the council is expressed. If the con-
struction of the words of the statute in regard
to the power of taxation was, as suggested by
Mr. Burge, to depend upon the representative
character of the legislative body to which they
might refer, such a rule would in its application
lead to questions of no slight difficulty, as to
how little or how much of the principle of re-
presentation being imparted to the body would
entitle the words to the larger or more limited
construction.

We think that the object and intention of the
Legislature, as they are to be collected from the
statute, require that the statute should be con-
structed to confer the power upon the council
now governing New Zealand, of imposing taxes
and duties for local purposes; and with due
deference, we do not think that the reasons
assigned by Mr. Burge, nor any other that
occur to us, furnish any well founded doubt
upon the subject.

(Signed)
FREDERICK THESIGER,
FITZ ROY KELLY,
THOMAS WUD
Temple, 30th July, 1845.

CROWN GRANTS.

Colonial Secretary's Office,
Auckland, 13th January, 1846.

THE undermentioned Deeds of Grant are
now lying at this Office ready for delivery
-and His Excellency the Lieutenant-Governor