Harbor Beacons and Light Houses are thus clearly excluded from the prohibition,—for, if it had been intended to include them within it, either the words “on the coast,” would have been omitted, or the words “Harbour Lights” would have been added. But as the principle of the Constitution Act is, that the Provincial Councils can legislate upon all subjects which are not expressly excepted from their jurisdiction, it follows, that Harbor Light Houses, not being amongst the excepted subjects, not being included in the restriction imposed as to Coast Lights,—the Provincial Councils are fully empowered to make laws for their erection and maintenance.

Unless, therefore, the Light on Pencarrow Head is a Coast Light, the objection raised by ministers to the Loan Act falls to the ground.

But that it is a harbour light, has been admitted on all sides, and by all parties, and by none so explicitly as by his Excellency’s present Ministers, as the following facts will abundantly prove.

1stly. A light has been maintained by the Province for several years, and its maintenance has year after year been acquiesced in, and sanctioned by the General Government: it is now proposed to change the site, but simply to substitute for the present light one of a superior order, it is certainly difficult to understand, how the General Government can now object to that which they have so long sanctioned, or can now declare that to be a contravention of the Constitution Act, which they have hitherto maintained to be strictly within the power of the Provincial Councils, unless indeed they are prepared to contend, that you have power to erect and maintain a light so imperfect that it is calculated rather to mislead, you have no power to erect and maintain a light of such a description as would render the access to this harbour at all times perfectly safe and easy.

2ndly. The Select Committee of the House of Representatives, appointed during the first Session of the General Assembly, to enquire into and report upon the subject of Light Houses, reported that in their opinion the Light on Pencarrow Head must be considered a Harbour Light, and should be established and maintained exclusively by this Province.

3rdly. So fully has this report been adopted by the present Ministry, that in October last, they drew up a minute, which was signed by the Colonial Treasurer, and was then transmitted here for the guidance and information of the Provincial Government: in that minute, referring to Light Houses on Pencarrow Head and at Manukau, they say, that “those being more of local concern—the charge should fall on the Provinces of Wellington and Auckland respectively. The Colony might however, undertake these works under arrangement with the Provinces,” and they add “that it is roughly estimated that the cost of each Light House would not be less than £10,000.”

4thly. Guided by these instructions I intimated to them in a Despatch dated the 6th February, that “it was in the contemplation of the Provincial Government to take immediate steps for the erection of a Harbor Light on Pencarrow Head,” and begged them to furnish me with the plans and specifications of it prepared by Mr. Roberts, in 1852, by order of Sir George Grey. Instead of raising any objection, or warning me against violating the Constitution Act, they at once forwarded the plans with a request that they might be returned.

Having regard then to these facts, I feel bound to say—that after having so repeatedly declared that the Light on Pencarrow Head was a Harbor Light—after having done all in their power to induce you to undertake its erection—and after being fully aware that you must some time since have taken steps involving an outlay according to their own estimate of £10,000, that the course pursued by the Ministry in this matter, is not only wholly unjustifiable, but that it is calculated to excite grave suspicion, that their disallowance of the Loan Act has been prompted by a desire to embarrass the Provincial Government, has been dictated by provincial jealousies.

But, in truth, they have themselves refuted and abandoned their own objection—for while they have disallowed the Loan Act, because it contained an appropriation for the Light House, they have not disallowed the Appropriation Act, which makes precisely the same provision. If the latter be not an infringement of the Constitution Act, neither can the former be. If they were justified in disallowing the Loan, then they were equally bound to have disallowed the Appropriation Act.

It is however satisfactory to know that the disallowance is wholly inoperative. The power of the Council to pass, and of the Superintendent to assent on be-