■No. 3

which there is reasonable cause to suspect has been stolen. If the object of the second clause is no more than this, it is unnecessary. However, the clause authorises the issue of a Search Warrant when there is cause to suspect that the carcase, head, &c, of any cattle " has been taken." The expression, "has been taken," has no technical meaning; in its meaning is included any taking, rightful or wrongful, and even if wrongful, such as amounts to criminal as well as that which falls short of that, and amounts only to a civil trespass. The third clause is also very indefinite, and should be reconstructed. It is not provided how or when the person charged is to be brought—whether under the warrant to search, or by summons or ordinary wan-ant on information laid. Moreover, the adjudication or trial is not clearly provided for, whether summary or not, and even if it were, such a power should not be given to one Justice of the Peace. This clause may have been suggested by sections in the Larceny Act, 24 and 25 Vie. (Imperial) and the Criminal Law and Practice Act, 1864, of the Colony of Victoria. If this be so, sufficient attention has not been shewn to the framing of those sections. The meaning of the word ''cattle " should be defined. Lastly, it appears that the Bill altogether misses the object it was intended to reach. It was probably intended to give a power to search for and punish those who knowingly had in their possession the head or skin, &c, of cattle which had been stolen. This is not the meaning of the words used; the felony suspected to have been committed is of the head, skin, &c, and not of the living animal. The "Licensing Ordinance, 1865," lias been assented to by His Excellency, and I return to your Honor a copy of the Bill with such assent duly noted thereon. I would, however, make the following observations with respect to this Ordinance. The 38th clause requires special comment. The question may properly be asked, what is the effect of this provision, which certainly, if effectual, would be very beneficial. It is to be observed that this clause does not propose to make the sale on credit an offence punishable by a fine or summary conviction, nor indeed does the clause forbid a sale on credit. It merely proposes to prevent the vendor on credit recovering from the vendee in any Court of Justice. This is clearly beyond the power of a Provincial Council. The Council may provide that a sale on credit is an offence punishable by a fine on summary conviction. If that were provided, then the sale would be illegal. It is further to be remarked that by clause 57 current licenses shall be deemed to have been granted under the Ordinance now passed by the Council. But until this provision there were not in Southland, under the Ordinances repealed, any powers of granting any license but an ordinary Publicans' License. This clause should therefore have provided that the Publicans' Licenses granted under the repealed Ordinances, should bo subject to provisions relating to Publicans' Licenses undor this Ordinance. There are provisions applicable to some licenses which are not a2>plieable to Publicans' Licenses, and doubts might be raised as to which provisions were intended to apply to " current licenses." As, however, much inconvenience would probably be experienced if this Bill were not assented, to Ministers have advised His Excellency to assent to it, but I have to suggest to your Honor that a Bill should be brought into the Provincial Legislature for the amendment of the Bill on the points to which I have adverted. I regret to state that for the following reasons Ministers are unable to recommend His Excellency to assent to the " Church of England Cemetery Ordinance, 1865." In the Preamble it appears that a piece of land, referred to in the Schedule as five acres, having, with other lands, been first conveyed to the Superintendent, under the Public Eeserves Act, 1854, in trust as an endowment for educational purposes, became by Ordinance of the Provincial Council, passed under and by virtue of the Public Eeserves Act, 1854, subjected to other trusts, and the Superintendent thereby held the said lands in trust for the purposes of a public burial ground. This was a change of trust which was warranted by the Eeserves Act, 1854. In 1864, however, the Provincial Council, by Ordinance, changed, or attempted to change, this trust, so far as relates to the land in the Schedule, into what seems a private trust, a trust for private purposes, namely, for the purposes of a burial ground for the deceased members of the Church of England. This, as it appears, was not a change of trust for the public purposes of the Province. However, that Bill was assented to, but in it the powers of management were reserved to the Superintendent, and were expressly withdrawn from the Bishop. In passing, it may also be observed that it is very questionable whether the Superintendent could be empowered by an Ordinance of the Provincial Council actually to convey the lands to the Bishop, and at the same time there should be reserved to him the power of management. The Government is advised that the Superintendent should have retained the fee, and the Ordinance should have provided for the management. However, the Ordinance was passed, but the Bishop declines to accept the land upon the trusts, and it is now proposed to convey the lands to the Bishop in trust for a burial ground for the members of bis Church, and to give him absolute and unlimited powers of leasing, and to dispose of the rents, issues, &c. These provisions are so extraordinary, and so clearly oppossd to the provisions and spirit of the Public Eeserves Act, 1854, that Ministers are unable to advise that the Bill be assented to. Surely if the land is for a burial ground, it should not be in the power of the Bishop to lease it even for a year, but he may lease it for a thousand years. As it appears, the proper course is for the Superintendent to retain the fee, and for the Provincial Council to pass an Ordinance changing the trusts into general trusts for a public cemetery, and to provide for the management by managers or others who should have power to apportion or set apart to such religious bodies as may require it, parts of the land, not, however, parting with the control, and the Superintendent still keeping the fee. There is also reason to believe that the desi ription of the contents or acreage of the land is incorrect. It is probable that the land is twenty acres, not five acres, as will be seen by the Memorandum of Mr. Domett, a copy of which is enclosed. I have, &c, His Honor the Superintendent, Southland. J. C. Richmond.

. Domett, 13th ril, 1884.

10

FURTHER PAPERS IiELATIVE T(J TIIK