CORRESPONDENCE.

Lyttelton Times, Volume II, Issue 62, 13 March 1852, Page 6

CORRESPONDENCE.

To the Editor of the Lyttelton Times. Sir, —I am not a Canterbury Pilgrim, but I have" acquired a considerable stake in your settlement, and I take much interest in its success. I have read with attention your article on the relation between the Association and the Colonists, and though I find much in it that I agree with, I cannot say it is altogether sstisfactory. It savours to my mind, a good deal of special pleading. I should like to hear from you something more definite in the way of information about your past and present views on this question. I should like to know, a little more particularly, what you expected when you came, and what you wish for now ; men of my class here have no faith in colonising Associations ;we know that their little fingers are heavier than the loins of Downing Street. But you, Sir, and the Pilgrims are committed to this system, You deliberately bought land, and came out to colonise under it. How can you complain because it works according to its original principles? You tell me that the Association promised to act "according to the wishes and directions of the colonists," and that you expected accordingly to enjoy, m your arrival, a "certain recognised control over its proceedings." Did it never strike you to ask how, and when, and by what means this end was to be obtained ? You were Colonial Reformers, you were bound, therefore, to believe that the one thing needful to the colony is the management of its own affairs. Were such vague assurances as you have quoted, the only guarantees you took for obtaining it? If so, I cannot but think you are rightly served. Besides, I really cannot see what you expected the Association to do. Was it to abdicate its functions and powers at the very moment when its first difricul-

ties were surmounted, and it had got well into the saddle for its gallop 1 If you thought so, (to say nothing of the ignorance of human nature you showed) it was not ior want of plain speaking on the part of your patrons. They told you what they were going to do, and if you were satisfied with the programme, you ought not to quarrel with the performance. I have read the minute of tha 24th of May, to which you refer, and I must say I never saw a document more inconsistent with your present views, or one which, as a friend to self-government, I thought more unsatisfactory. You seem to forget that in it the Association distinctly manifested an intention of continuing for an indefinite time in its present form, and of not i-eeognising the Colonists as entitled to any influence or interest over its pro ceedings whatever ; " when a Provincial Government shall be created," the minute indeed, in substance says " the Association will spend its funds in accordance with the wishes of the people, expressed through the {rovernment," retaining at the same time in its own hands the full power of doing so, or not, as it pleases, but until a Provincial Government shall be created, —that is, during by far the most important part of its existence, the Association will not admit the rights of the Colonists to be heard. During that period the Colonists are to be contented with " the presence of Mr. Godley and their future Bishop," and with the hope expressed by the Committee that those gentlemen will " possess their confidence." Now, I have a very great respect for Mi\ Godley, and hope to venerate the Bishop when I know him, but I must say it would have startled me, if I had been a pilgrim, to hear from the mouths of statesmen and " reformers," such doctrine as that the " presence" of two individuals was to stand instead of proper institutions Besides, how did you suppose that the " presence" of Mr. Godley and the Bishop was to work? Of course, when all parties are agreed, things will go smoothly; but suppose they differ? Suppose the Association and the Colonists take opposite views of any question, as they have already done on several ? Whose views are the Bishop and Mr. Godley to carry out ? The Associations' undoubtedly. So far as regards the expenditure of the funds in question, they are merely agents, and bound to obey their principal. In such a case they could not obey the Colonists if they wished it. All this is no fine-spun deduction, it is plain on the face of that singular paper, which appears to have been intended as the Charter of your liberties, and which is at least entitled to the praise of perfect candour. Allow me to ask you, once more, what ground you had for expecting to have a " recognized control over^The proceedings of the Association," and what you propose that the Association shall do now. In short, how do you reconcile the Canterbury Association and self Government, both of which you profess to advocate ? It appears to me that you, not the Managing Committee, are inconsistent. I remain, Sir, Your very humble servant, A Shagroon.

To the Editor of the " Lyttelton Times." Sir, — I think if you will examine the corrected proofs of my letter to Mr. Godley of the 16th ult, you will find the price of fire wood at Christchurch is set down at " from 20 to SO shillings per cord," not " 30 shillings," as printed in jour paper. I find also that I have omitted to mention in the letter referred to, that carts can now approach the top of the river bank, immediately over the 6 feet Coal seam without difficulty. If you can find space for the insertion of this note in your next number, you will greatly oblige your obedient servant, H. J. Cridland. Christchurch, March 9, 1852.