CORRESPONDENCE.

Lyttelton Times, Volume III, Issue 128, 18 June 1853, Page 10

CORRESPONDENCE.

To the Editor of the Lyttelton Times. Sib., —In your last number, you published a letter as emanating from one of Mr. Davis' committee. The whole of whom assembled at Mr. Heaphy's, on Monday the 13th inst., when they gave their most unqualified contradiction to that charge, and declare they know nothing whatever directly or indirectly of the writer. I am directed to inform your communicant whose ambition seems to lead him astray, that without him we have "Corn enough in Egypt." I remain, Sir, Your obedient servant, For Mr. Davis' Committee, H. W. Read, Secretary. Lyttelton, June 14, 1853.

To the Editor of the Lyttelton Times. Sic, —There was a pleasing little farce enacted at the Universal Inn last Monday evening ; "quite a domestic comedy, I do assure you ; for Mr. Davis' committee assembled in solemn conclave to find out which of their body wrote the letter disclaiming having read Mr. Davis' celebrated address prior to publication. A meeting of conspirators plotting the assassination of Louis Napoleon could not have had more awe impressed on their countenances. In fact the silence which first prevailed was quite arctic in its frigid intensity, and each committeeman gazed upon his neighbour with looks expressive of " ah! we shall soon discover the traitor." Either, Sir, you have heen " despicably entrapped"—in more Saxon English, humbugged—or else, which I am not prepared to believe, one of the committee has but an indifferent regard for truth, for one and all declared that they never wrote the letter. A report to this effect was drawn up and signed by them, and the Barons of England, when they affixed their marks to Magna Charta, could not have done so with more stately parade than did the Committee to a deed which is doubtless destined, at no distant day, to grace the archives of Canterbury. For Sir, it is an historic document, and it was presented to Mr. Davis, who entered the room soon after it was signed, by the worthy chairman with a solemnity befitting the high occasion. Now, Sir, the duty rests with you to proclaim who wrote the letter. The Committee disclaim it, and •as it is one of your maxims (and a most excellent one) never to insert letters unless the writers' names are attached, I publicly call upon you to do so. The interests of truth and the honor of Lyttelton call for this at your hands, and neither truth nor honor are, I believe, mere empty words in your estimation. I remain, Sir, Respectfully yours, One behind the Scenes. [We cannot without a writer's permis-. si on give up his name. We are not acquainted with those who constitute Mr. Davis' committee, and may therefore have been imposed upon by a person not belong-

ing to it. We have written to our correspondent on the subject, and hold him rersponsible for his words.— Ed. L. T.~]

To the Editor of iheEytielton Times. Sib, —Should I not be intruding toomuch on your columns—may I ask the favour to make a few remarks on a letter signed " One of the Committee," published in the Lyttelton Times of last Saturday. Happening to go into the Universal Inn, I saw several gentlemen there, upwards of 18 or 20 being, in the room. Thinking it was a meeting of the Constitutional Society, and not being a member, I was about to leave. Again I thought it best to ask whether my presence was allowed. I did so; the Chairman returned a very polite answer, saying " Your company, Sir, or any other stranger will be received with pleasure—as the business we are about to bring forward will be transacted in an open, honest, and straightforward manner—and most of the gentlemen you see present are Mr. Davis' committee for the Election." The Chairman then addressed-the meeting, after which the names of Mr. Davis',' committee were called over,-. and each man answered to his name. Th 6 Lyttelton Times was called for,- and a letter signed " One of the Committee" was read to the Meeting. Several discussions ensued relating to the letter, when one of the Committee addressed the Chairman, saying "I have had several hints thrown out that I^am supposed of being the author of that letter. I assure you I am innocent of it, andl think I should be doing my duty (after being supposed td he the author of such a base action) if I resign from being one of the Committee." Another of the Committee said ,v My friend has just made a remark that he thinks it his duty to resign! What for ? I have been accused of being the author of the letter, —but I assure you it is not the case-—----neither do I believe that any of the Committee would be guilty of acting such a two-faced part, &c, &c." Several othera also made a few remarks on the letter. A Report was then drawn up by the Chairman (on behalf of the committee), declaring their innocence of having anything whatever to do with the letter, and each committee-man signed it. Mr. Davis then entered f the room, and the Chairman addressed him in a most satisfactory manner, handing him the address that his Committee had signed. I assure you, Mr. Editor, I narrowly watched the proceedings. It was not altogether pleasant at first,—several parties gazing at each other with serious looking faces. Aye ! I may well say with ; " faces as long as my arm,'* .fancying within themselves—we shall find him out directly! (i.e. meaning the originator of the letter). But, Sir, they were mistaken, —there was a thorough examination of all the Committee — and then they began to find themselves in a mare's-nest! it appearing to them a mere " hoax." It was mooted by some of the Committee that a letter should be sent to the Editor, but I did not stop to hear thendecision.

Now, Sir, it is my opinion that the letter was not written by one of Mr. Davis' committee. Perhaps this kind-hearted gentleman will favour us with his real name—so that it might prove to the public that he really is one of the committee. He says in his letter " as I do not wish it to be supposed that I could sanction such a performance, Bee." Again, I think the word " performance" is sufficient to induce the public to believe that it is nothing but an electioneering sneer from " One of the Committee" of an opposite party ! I am, Sir, Your obedient pervant, A Visiiob. Lyttelton, June 15, 1853.

To the Editor of the Lyttelton Times. Sib, —I shall not at present trouble you with any farther discussion, as to whether your complaints of the Association and my- - self, for withholding information, are reasonable or not. The principal object of my last letter was to elicit, if possible, an explicit statement of those alledged grievances in the management of the Association's home affairs, which I find the common topics of remark throughout the colony, which have been mainly circulated through your columns, and to which I supposed you to refer under the term impolicy. I desired this for the purpose of enabling me better to explain and justify the real policy of the Association on those questions which constitute such subjects of grievance. I enumerate them thus : Pasturage, Ecclesiastical arrangements, Relations with the Colonists, and with the local Agent. I shall not omit the subjects of Tenure and Accounts, although these are matters rather of administration than policy. I think I might not unreasonably have expected such explicit statement from you, whose paper has been, from the first, the able and consistent opponent of the Association's home policy, and the great vehicle of complaint. But, as you decline so to commit yourself, I will endeavour to the best of my ability, to handle the subjects in order. Should I fail to do justice to your views and opinions on the contrary side, you must attribute it to the obvious want of such a statement as I have asked for and which you decline. Let me first say that as your strictures on the Association's policy have been for the most part free from personal acrimony, I trust we shall mutually observe that rule. In public questions, personal acrimony is a great hindrance to the cause of truth. Though each of us doubtless believes the other to be in error, there can be no reason for attributing on either side wrong motives or intentions. Let me also speak very briefly of two individuals whose names must be prominent in such a discussion—Lord Lyttelton and Mr. Godley. Of Lord Lyttelton it would he bad taste in me to speak in those terms of eulogy >svhich my own personal feelings towards him would prompt. I shall therefore merely refer to him as the one moving principle of the Association since Mr. Godley left England. Whatever merit there may be in the conduct of the affairs of the Settlement since then, belongs almost exclusively to his Lordship, not merely as the presiding mind of the Committee, but as the practical regulator of the details of business. I must say it has never been my lot to meet in any one so great a capacity for combining general principles with exactness and aptitude for the smallest of such details; and as that merit, whatever it may be, belongs to him, so on the other hand no one would be more ready than himself to assume responsibility for what may have been done amiss. I, for my part, as having had the practical management under Lord Lyttelton, am ready to adopt and share that responsibility, , Of Mr. Godley I have spoken on former occasions, and I need not repeat the sentiments I have expressed. I very much regret that he is not here. Had this been the case I am persuaded that he himself, after such explanations as I could have offered, would have been the

first to vindicate those [parts of the policy and proceedings of the Committee of Management about which misunderstanding prevails. I am very sorry that his absence, and the necessity of vindicating Lord Lyttelton and the Committee, compels me to say a word seeming to derogate from the value of his services to the Settlement. I pass now to the matter in hand. The subjects are too numerous and wide to be embraced in a single letter. I will content myself at present with explaining the policy of the Committee of Management on that very important question—perhaps the most important of all—the land, and particularly the pasturage regulations. I find it generally believed that on this fundamental question, the Committee of Management differed from Mr. Godley, and deliberately adopted and pertinaciously adhered to certain regulations, the effect of which if persisted in would, it is said, have brought ruin on the colony, from which Mr. Godley's better policy saved it. To lead to a proper understanding of this matter, I must explain how it stood when Mr. Godley left England. My remarks will only ajiply to the period since then. Whilst Mr. Godley was in England he was the principal, almost the exclusive, manager of the Association's affairs, and would be the proper person to bear the responsibility of them during that time. Lord Lyttelton first assumed the Chairmanship of the Committee in the Spring of 1850. I joined the Committee in July of that year, though I had for a few months before taken some trifling part in its concerns. The state of things at that period was this. The terms of an agreement had been settled, under Mr. Godley's direction, between the New Zealand Company and the Association. The principal points of such agreement were, that the Company undertook to set apart the Canterbury Block for the purposes of the Settlement for ten years; the Association during that time to be at liberty to sell land at 31. per acre, and to let certain limited extents of pasturage at 16s. Bd. per 100 acres to what was termed the first body of purchasers, and at 20s per 100 acres to others. That arrangement was unquestionably Mr. Godley's. He was at the same time a Director of the New Zealand Company and the Manager of the Association, and in that double capacity arranged everything between the two bodies. Whatever may have been the merits or defects of the arrangement, they were his. It is probable that had he remained in England its defects would have been corrected ; but as he left it so Lord Lyttelton found it, and upon that basis proceeded to carry into execution the scheme of the Settlement. When I was first introduced to the affairs I was requested, on the part of the then intending Land Purchasers, to see, on their behalf, into the title which the Association held from the Company, and under which they proposed to complete their engagements with such Land-Purchasers. I must say, that, on examination, I was rather struck with surprise at finding the very precarious tenure of the Association's title. The New Zealand Company only held limited powers over their territory under their Act of 1847 for a period originally of three years, and of which three months only were then to run. Though unconnected officially at that time with the Association, I took the liberty of pointing out the extreme peril in which the undertaking was thus placed, and the importance, indeed, the absolute necessity, of obtaining, without delay, an Act to enable the Association to fulfil its engagements. Lord Lyt-

telton, as, I believe, in consequence of this suggestion, applied to Government for leave to obtain such an Act, but the Company not having then declared its intention to surrender, such leave could not be obtained till after the sth of July, 1850, when the surrender took place, and Lord Lyttelton, without delay, pressed forward the application to Parliament, which resulted in the Act of 1850. But that measure was carried through with the utmost hurry to save the Session of Parliament then on the point of expiring. The Committee had not more than three weeks to get it through, and all which could be done was to take up the scheme as settled by Mr. Godley, with all its defects, and embody it in the form of an Act of Parliament. In that scheme were certain palpable omissions. In particular—under it no power was reserved, to the Association of general regulation over the unappropriated lands. Its powers were limited simply to selling land, and demising pasturage upon such and such terms; so that when the Act came into practical working, when a stockowner appliod for a run, intending to stock it with 1000 sheep, and looking to the expansion of his flock to twenty times that number, the Association had no power whatever of making a reserve of land for him to meet such expansion. I may notice also other omissions. For instance, the Association had no power even of granting Timber Licenses, or making a single work or improvement on the unappropriated territory. Time did not permit the omissions to be remedied. I remember pointing them out myself to Lord Lyttelton at the time ; but all parties agreed that the measure was of such vital importance, as giving a valid title to purchasers, that everything must be sacrificed to that object, leaving the defective powers to be supplied, as they were, in the „ next "Session of Parliament, Mr. Godley, in the meantime, arrived in the colony, and the Committee shortly received from him some very sharp (and I must say in my opinion unmerited) rebukes for the curtailed powers with which he found himself invested. He made a particular suggestion, viz., to offer Stockowners long fixed terms of years with pre-emptive right. The Committee were obliged to decline this proposal which would have been contrary to their powers, and would, if acceded to, have had the effect of tying up the land and putting an end to Sales. In the following Session of Parliament they obtained, as every one knows, an extension of powers which they forthwith delegated absolutely to Mr. Godley. The question whether Pasturage should be let at any given rate, or in any particucular way, has never been a subject of policy, with them. On the contrary they gave their local agent the widest possible discretion. Their first great object was to secure a Title to their Land-purchasers—then to cure the defects of the original scheme, and, having done so, to invest their Agent with the fullest powers, I am quite sure their course of proceeding was wise—and, without casting blame on anybody, that the effect has been to remedy mistakes instead of creating them. The facts I have mentioned are perfectly familiar to many gentlemen in the colony, and .considering the obloquy thrown on the Association, on this account, I feel some surprize that they never seem to have been adverted to. I will address you further upon the othertopics. I am. Sir, Your obedient servant, Henky Sewell. Lj ttelton, June 15, 1853.