CHRISTCHURCH COLONISTS' SOCIETY.

Lyttelton Times, Volume IV, Issue 159, 21 January 1854, Page 5

CHRISTCHURCH COLONISTS' SOCIETY.

A meeting of the Clmstchurch Colonists' Society was held attheWhite Hart on Monday last, the 16th inst., according to advertisement, the pubHc being invited to attend for the purpose of considering the course to he pursued in reference to a letter addressed by Dr. Savage to Mr. Martin, enclosing copies of a pamphlet entitled, "Mutual Relations between the Canterbury Association, and the purchasers of land in the Canterbury Settlement." Mr. Hitchens having been voted into the chair, Mr. Martin commenced the proceedings of the evening by reading the letter of Dr. Savage, which we understand, will shortly be published, together with a diaftof a reply by a committee appointed at the meeting. The main purport of the letter seemed to be, to obtain, through the Colonists' Society, properly authenticated instances of distress and hardships consequent on the non-fulfilment of tbe conditions in which the Canterbury Association had sold land, such details to be used to strengthen the case to be brought before the House of Commons against the Association. Mr. Martin concluded by giving an analysis of the contents of the pamphlet which accompanied the letter, Mr. Pollard moved that a select committee should be appointed, to draw up a reply to the statements contained in the pamphlet. Mr. Bishop observed that our main object must be not to fight the battle of the Association, but to disabuse the public and our friends at home of the injurious statements contained in the pamphlet, reflecting upon the prosperity of the Colony. He advocated the motion of Mr. Pollard. Mr. Ollivier, though so recently arrived in the Colony, could not refrain from attending tbe present meeting, being assured, that so strong was the interest felt by his friends at home in the prosperity of the settlement that the statements in this pamphlet were calculated to cause them the greatest anxiety and distress. He differed from Mr. Bishop as to the mode of treating this pamphlet, and confessed that it would be more in accordance with his feelings at once to meet the palpable mis-statements contained in it, by an emphatic denial. The pamphlet in itself, perhaps, *did not deserve the mount of attention proposed to be given to it. At the same time it might be expedient to appoint a Committee to analyse the pamphlet, and to return a more studied' reply to Dr. Savage's appeal to them. Mr. J. Bhutan agreed in a great deal with what had been expressed by the last speaker. Different feelings would be excited in different minds by the statements advanced in the pamphlet before them. He could sympathise with the feeling of indignation expressed by Mr. Ollivier, but the feeling uppermost in bis mind was one of contempt. If there was poison inoculated into the English public by such statements, he felt assured that the antidote was also being applied at home in various ways. He would mention in the first place, the moderate, well considered, temperate speech of Mr. Godley at the dinner given to him on his return from Canterbury—a speech which must cany much more weight than an anonymous doeumentof the kind before them. Then again, long before this night's proceedings could reach England, there would have been applied another admirable antidote in the official address of our Superintendent to the Provincial Council. As far, then, as concerned the pamphlet abstractedly, he would have preferred to have it unnoticed. As however, they had been appealed to directly by the letter of Dr. Savage, it was due in courtesy to him to reply to his letter, and lie would therefore venture to propose as an amendment to the motion of Mr. Pollard, that a Committee should be appointed—not to answer the pamphlet— but to draw up a reply to Dr. Savage, and having prepared a list of .names to be placed on that committee, he would read them. (See the namesj of the Committee below.) Mr. Packer said that no doubt antidotes were being applied to a certain extent in England, but. these perhaps reached rather the higher classes, whilst thousands might see the statements of the pamphlet to whom the opposite statements which had been mentioned were not known. Dr. Savage happened to be a relative of his own, and he was perfectly convinced that he was free from any impure or sinister motive in taking the part he had, but that he was under the influence of interested persons who had misled him as to the condition of this settlement,and that, if the real state of the case was laid before him, he would be as anxious to disabuse the

public in England of any erroneous assertions to which he had given currency, as he now was to condemn, as he believed he was doing, the abuses of the Association. He would therefore suggest that a reply should be drawn up to the letter cf Dr. Savage, and that a good number of signatures, with the address and occupation of those who signed it, appended, should be forwarded personally to Dr. Savage, and he had do doubt of his being sufficiently convinced by this. He would warn them to be cautious how far they entered into subjects connected with the affairs of the Association. This was a matter yet to be decided by the Provincial Council, and their proceedings were watched by interested parties, so that if, in replying to this pamphlet, they were too severe on the Association, it would raise the hopes of one party, whilst on the other hand, if they were too lenient, it would be taken as a favourable indication by others. Mr. Wilson could not discover any proof by which this pamphlet could be authenticated as the production of a bond fide Committee of Land Purchasers. For aught that appeared on the face of it, it might be nothing more than an exparte statement got up by the only two persons whose names appeared in it, viz., Dr. Savage and Mr. Felix Wakefield, with perhaps the Editor of the Australian Gazette. He did not therefore consider it worthy of notice, but would answer Dr. Savage's letter. The proceedings of the meeting terminated after some further conversation, in the appointment of the following gentlemen as a Committee to draw up a reply to Dr. Savage's letter :— Messrs. Tancred, J. Brittan, Hitchens, Packer, Inwood, Martin, Wilson, Bishop, Reader, and Sir T. Taucred, with power to add to their number.