Original Correspondence.

New Zealand Spectator and Cook's Strait Guardian, Volume XIII, Issue 1367, 8 September 1858, Page 3

Original Correspondence.

To the Editor of the “ New Zeala >d Spectator.” , Wellington, 6th September, 1858; Sin, I wish to trespass on your valuable Journal liy* the inse tion of the few following lines.—l desire to bo rrifonned what is the true name of Dr. Featherstons Uovernxrtent; for I am a working man, and my knowl< dgo is bo little in Government matters. I havebcen puzzling iny head far a good while to know, and have inquired <> a gredt many people, and tLhy say it is a self-willed nfled Government,~hy Dr. Featherston, Mr. Fox, and * _ r * I’ttaheruert; and I asked a professional gentleman ot the law, and he said it was a Demoniacal Government, a Governlnbut that was possessed with devils. Veh, if this is made the Seat of Government, we must alter, for we have 1 got the devil id tori much alrbady. >ow, I know that the threii F’3 in Sit Ghorge Grey's time, when they used to be raging rind scandalizing him about his bad government; said M should do no good until we.had a democratic government,—for that would be a popular government,—and iheil the place would go ahead. , Well, Sir, they kept on begging of Sir Qeorge Grey to get them one ; but Sir George told them that they “were not learned enough fot statesmen to carrv on a government,—that they must Wait until they had more knowledge in politics. Well, nfler Sir George left New Zealand, they sent Mr. Fox to England to the Queen, and begged of her to give them a constitution. Well, she gave them one, and it was to be Democratic principles—a popular government. Well, Sir, I hats bnen here a good while, and I have seen nothing but what is unpopular in all their actions, —f«>r I feel that we are taxed very heavily to support a most extiavagant Government lumbered with unneces* ri r y officials ; —and not satisfied with that, they borrowed large sums of money, paying at the rate of ten pdr Cent., which amounts to about ten thousand pounds a-year of interest alone. That is your Dr* Government! He says he is the working inrin's friend 1 Yes, Sir, he will shew us soon \vbat friendship he has for the working man ; for let him only go on a little longer, and he will bring about a panic in the Proiince, and Eliall have tu pack up and leave tile place J for he kedps ori making his brag that he will bring things to a derid-lock. So; Sir, I think that we had better get one of Bramah’s locks, and put it on before he empties the chest. Sir, we must wake up out of this stupor we are in, and hive a fresh Government for that now here^—for it deters ri man with money when he sees a bad government. Now; I find that Dr. Featherston’s Government is made quite a ridicule of every where. So, Sir, let (the working men rouse themselves up, and have a Radical Government, —oiie that will eradicate all these eVils, and bring in a better state of things,conferring inestimable benefits on us and our families.

I am, Sir, Your obedient servant, A WORKING MAN; To the Editor of the New Zealand Spectator. "Wellington, September 8, 1858. Str, —Observing your Reporter present and taking notes during the trial before the Magistrates on Friday and Monday last, I conclude your intention to publish the evidence taken in the trial': I protest against the publication as another link in the train of astonishing injustice to which I have been subjected in this case'. The publication can only afford additional filatter bf scandal to the public; of which scaiidal I trust, witli God's help, eventually to be proved the innocent occasion, not the guilty cause. In this event, the publication must be highly prejudicial to public morals, to myself; and to other parties concerned.In case, however, mere precedent, or a sense of supposed duty to the public, should determine in the publication, I must request the favor of the printed evidence being accompanied by this protest from myself. I have spoken of “ astonishing injustice/’ I will justify my words. 1. I am ca'led to account for an offence, which, according to the allegation, occurred not days, or weeks, but more than a quarter of a year ago; the circumstances of which, were known at the time not only to thccomplainant, but to one who stood to her in the nearest relation, in the place of a parent, but who, as incontestable evidence proves, treated the affair as nothing. Or.e knows how a fancy long dwelt upon grows into the mind, and becomes incorporated with it, as a truth. One knows also 1 - liow exceedingly difficult it is to disprove apparent circumstances dfter a lengthened lapse of time, of which dt the mOmeht the explanation is selfb vid ent. ' I maintain it to be a Case of very gross injustice, that the fact of this charge was withheld from the party principally Concerned until memories had grown weak and. ideas had hardened into seeming realities.

2. For these mariy weeks pist, frota the hour I first heard of the allegation, I have earnestly challenged full investigation. This justice was repeatedly refused me. The father of the alleged injured partv chose, for whatever cause, to take the law into his own hands. He committed wliat one who stood by, a gentleman of extremely moderate and sober habits of speech, described as “a brutal and cowardly assault” upon me. This course, to my infinite relief necessitated an opportunity of clearing my reputation, with evidence given by myself on oath, in the highest Court of Justice. Bu't the cowardice was followed by another more cowardly act still, on tlie part of the same aggressor, shutting up the mouth of Jlie accused, party by resorting to a mode of trial, in which the only witness who could possibly give .evidence directly cofittadicfory of the main char-e° is prohibited from speaking. I sincerely believe that, in any Court of Justice ia England, the charge, under the circumstances, would not have been entertained. Legal .technicalities would have yielded to the plain equity of the case, (and a Police Court especially is a Court of Equity as well as law), the plaintiff would have been ousted as incompetent, and the matter at issue been left for adjudication before a jury in the higher Court, to which the appeal had been made. I must confess to a keen sense of injustice inflicted on me by this anticipatiqn of the verdict of the higher Ccfurt and jury, and, as I am legallv advised, the almost insuperable prejudice excited against me in a legal point of view, by the verdict now given ; so that having been grievously calumniated, brutally assaulted, and condemned unheard, I am practically excluded from" redress.

3. 1 maintain the exceeding injustice of dispesing of a matter of this vital importance to the accused, by any verdict dependent on a mere majority. What is the deep principle of Trial by Jury, which has made it for so many centuries, the bulwark of British liberty rind justice. Surely it is this; —that a minority, even of one dissentient juror, implies a possible doubt of guilt, which doubt is justly given in favor of the accused. What, if, in the present case, there were one, two, four, six Magistrates, in the dissentient minority ; was the benefit of the possible doubt , accorded to the accused partv?. Yet were any almost of his earthly interests, short "of life itself, not dependent on that vefdict (so easily pronounced) of “guilty or “ not guilty.” Surely, this was not a case of a nature to be thus summari y disposed of, b'f a Court so composed, or proceedings so informally conducted. A considerable majority of the Magistrates on the Bench were, on political,’ personal, or religious grounds, strongly biassed against me. To my knowledge, on the Beach,and in the Court, lists were previously made out with reference to these grounds, by private friends of my own, who wished to calculate the probable decision ; and the course actually taken by the several magistrates justified the expectation. Ido not, in any degree, imply conscious, wilful, and dishonourable unfairness on the* part of any individual; I speak simply of the natural bias of prejudice and predilection. And by “ informal conduct of proceedings,” I mean the fact of Magistrates voluntarily attending or absenting themselves, walking out and in, and so missing important portions cf the evidence; putting leading questions to the chief witness, prompting the very words oh which the fact of the alleged crime principally depended ; crying “ hear, hear,” when' a point seemed made by the advocate pleading against me ; and even interrupting my own advocate in the midst of his appeal fof justice, so that the Chairman of the Bench remonstrated, saying, lest it might have the appearance of a “ bias,”

1 own I am not surprised, considering these irregularities, at the verdict which was given; though the evidence on the face of it shows that the two chief corroborative circumstances—the crying out, and removal of the enveloping shawl—are directly contradicted by an unimpeachable witness; and the witness to whom the circumstances were first related, is not produced in Court. I have spoken of the vital importance’ of the interests at issue. It is only not a matter of life and death to me. That five pounds penalty involves consequence** to one in my position, little less than capital punishmeat. Henceforth my life i s a lingering ignominious dra h. lam utterly and, unless God,' by some almost' miracle, brings me out of the lire, irretrievab'y ruined in all my earthly hopes and prospects. lam excluded from my clerical profession; I must remain to the end of my years a marked and banished man, severed from the dearest relationships in this world, living alone with God m my own conscience, deer of this offence, though stained others, and in the hearts of the few confiding friends who still believe me innocent, and are trustful enough to abide by a character which, up to the tixhe of this calumny, baa never been impugned.’ I remain, Sir, Your faithful servant, ARTHUR BAKER/