Untitled

Lyttelton Times, Volume III, Issue 113, 5 March 1853, Page 9

To the Editor of the Lyttelton Times. Sik, —I am delighted at the zealous manner In which my friend Zeno advocates the Town Reserve question. I trust, however, he will excuse me if I doubt whether his zeal be altogether according to knowledge. The whole force of the argument in my former letter went to shew that a reserve once made for a specified purpose could not be diverted from its original use, without the full consent of all parties interested, and that there exists at present no'power short of the Imperial Parliament which conld so alter it. The first Act- of Parliament gives the Canterbury Association power to reserve land for the site of the Capital and Port Town, and to make other reserves for public purposes- Now as it was elsewhere stipulated that the Capital should contain 1,000 acres for private purchase, and as the Town Reserve of Christchurch must be added to the present town to fulfil this condition, it is clear that they form part of the site of the capital, and that the Canterbury Association or whoever occupies their place will always have the power to lay the Town Reserves (not the Park) out in Town sections to be sold at not ,\ess than £4S per acre. And I think Zeno will agree with me that the accession of so large a sum, as their sale would produce, to the Colonial revenue, would amply compensate for any loss the town would undergo by the deprivation of common rights over them. Zeno says " the Town Reserve are now bond fide appropriated to public uses." lam wholly at a loss to guess to what public use (further than as forming part of the site of the capital) they have been appropriated. Indeed, I considered it as one of our great grievances that Mr. Godley had leased them out (at rates far beyond what he could legally claim for waste land) for pasturage to private individuals, and that the Association claimed to have purchased them as their corporate property—liable to be let, mortgaged, or sold at their good pleasure. I think it of great importance that the Colonists should clearly make iip their minds as to what they consider, their rights on the subject. What I endeavoured to prove in my former letter was briefly as follows— Ist, —That all reserves made for any public purpose under the first, and prior to the publication of the second Act, are legally appropriated to the purposes specified at the time of their reservation. 2ndly,—That such reservation did not give the Association right of property over them : so that although as long as the Canterbury Association continues our governing body, it can manage such reserves for public purposes,—yet they cannot transfer their power burdened with

any engagements to any other public body—or lease, sell, or convey them to any private individual whatever. 3rdly,—That the Canterbury Association did acquire the power to purchase, for the future, land under certain conditions, by the 2nd Act, but that such power did not extend to the purchase of land already appropriated ; so that the claim of the Canterbury Association to hold the reserves made previous to the second Act, as real property conveyed to themselves by deed is utterly illegal, and that all leases or sales of such land are necessarily void. I would particularly insist that what applies to one reserve applies.to all, and that the leases understood to have been made of the Agent's house to the Baiik, and of the boat-house yard to Messrs. Cookson, Bowler & Co. (if such really exist) being a diversion of public land to private use, are unjust, and at the farthest can only hold good as long as the Canterbury Association continues dominant. . Since writing the above, I have heard it reported that the Canterbury Association rest their claims on the assumed fact that the 2nd Act is retrospective, and I doubt not they will be very glad should it turn out to be so. But it is one thing to assert a fact, and another to prove it. The words of the 7th clause state as plain as English can do, that all lands purchased under its authority—must be at the time unsold and unappropriated. Either the Ist Act gave the Canterbury Association power to reserve and appropriate, or it did not. If it did not, all the so-called reserves that the Canterbury Association have not yet conveyed to themselves under the 2nd Act (including the roads and streets), are still waste land, and may be selected as such by any holder of a land-order. If it did give them the power, it placed all the reserves made under it out of their power to convey by the 2nd Act. To make it legal, they must; prove that the Ist Act, in addition to the ordinary power of reservation, gave them authority to set land apart for future appropriation—which I defy them to do. Besides being illegal their claim is also inequitable. The first purchasers bought land of a body which it was known had not the power to mortgage the public lands in the colony for their corporate debts ; the Canterbury Association have, therefore, no right to place us without our consent in a worse position than we were at the time they entered into engagements with us. I trust my fellow colonists will not allow themselves to be driven from their point by the confident assertions of interested parties, but | insist on the Canterbury Association proving I their title to every inch of ground they claim. I must again apologise for troubling you at i such length. I am, Sir, Your obedient servant, z. y. x.