CORRESPONDENCE.

Lyttelton Times, Volume IV, Issue 188, 12 August 1854, Page 10

CORRESPONDENCE.

To the Editor of the Lyttelton limes. Sir, —One of our old proverbs is, " that silence gives consent," and lest this should apply to the twaddle of "the " Canterbury Standard" upon the Road question, I venture to request you to insert a few remarks in contradiction of the statements so i°-no-rantly put forth by that paper. I will in the first place point out the unfairness of judging of the anchorage off the town of Lyttelton by the casualties that occurred three years ago. At that time we met and memorialized the Government to lay down some moorings in consequence of the-wrecks that had then taken place occasioned by a terrific gale of wind such as we have not had since that date. Our petition Was not adopted, and we since then find that moorings are wholly unnecessary. English vessels of the.largest tonnage (as for instance the " Northfleet" of 1000 tons) now anchor off the town instead of below Officers' point, as was the case on the arrival of the first body of colonists, and for some time after; and so recently as last January the " Mountain Maid" of 200 tons sailed inside the reef and ballasted above Ward's island opposite Raupaki. The captains of vessels of any size (which have lain for weeks anchored off the town) have borne witness to the security of the holding ground, and ridden out every sou' wester that has yet blown. Nor must it be forgotten that with all the vessels from England and Australia visiting this port, not a casualty has occurred up to the present date, with one exception, and that was to the " Hashemy" off GolZan's Bay, which lay ashore for some hours, although finally got off without any considerable damage. Every day the capabilities of our harbour are being more and more tested, but as a matter of course this knowledge is obviously beyond the reach of the comprehension of the editor of the "Canterbury Standard," who appears to be ignorant of the smallest shipping details. I will next proceed to notice the site of the town of Lyttelton,'and will contend that it has been chosen with great judgment, as the spot presenting the greatest area of land available for building and other purposes, consistently with regard to the contiguity of the shipping, and that it presents no .insurmountable barrier to a good available road being carried on to the Plains fully adequate to the present wants of the settlement. What folly it would have been had London been removed to* Sheerness, in consequence of the capability of forming a railway to the latter place, and its supposed facilities for saving vessels the long and tedious navigation of the river Thames to London. No, Sir, it is obvious that the termination of navigation mnst be the place for vessels to load and discharge, and such facilities are to be found coupled with the town of Lyttelton. These advantages have established our reputation with shipping in a very high degree, and in no port of New Zealand is greater promptitude observed in the despatch of vessels than in our port as connected with Lyttelton. Next as to the exposed site of the town. This, Sir, is quite untrue, and could be controverted by nine tenths of those residing on the Plains, who often remark how much warmer and more sheltered we appear to be than themselves. If vegetation is any criterion, we must obviously carry the palm, from the well-known fact that geraniums, roses, and .tender flowers of various kinds.

not only flourish with us luxuriantly, but even flower all the winter through, our vegetables are in no way affected by frost, whilst on the Plains the.crops are cut up root and branch. Let any one visit Christchurch during a nor' wester, and then he will be prepared to draw a more favourable comparispn as regards Lyttelton, bad as we maybe affected by the wind ourselves. I would also make one observation in reference to the Port, which is, that whilst the -prevailing N.E. winds are blowing, and causing a great swell throughout that portion of the harbour open to the heads, (and this is particularly the case off Gollan's Bay,) the water is as smooth as a mill pond directly you pass pfScers' point, and boats which may be coming from the Peninsular with a strong favourable wind are obliged when past that point to take in sail and row to the Jetty. I have now intruded sufficiently on your valuable space for this .letter, but there are other points which I will notice in a subsequent eommunica,tion. -I remain, Yours obediently, Alpha. Xyttelton, August 9th, 1854..

To the Editor of the Lyttelton Times. Sib, —Are the public ever to hope for a.ny explanation from the Church Trustees of the present position of the Church property which they are supposed to be overlooking, and the expectations we are to form for the future. It js indeed lamentable that affairs in which most of us are so deeply interested, should remain in the unsettled and unsatisfactory state in which they at present appear to be. But it is .still more lamentable to hear so many assertions on the one hand and contradictions on the other, among men occupying a marked position in our settlement.; accompanied, as they not un.frequently ; ai'e, by wholesale, and sweeping charges against Mr. Sewell, while but few if any of them seem acquainted with the extent of that gentleman's power or authority. Open acts of spoliation—a constant practice of deception—and something nearly approaching to misappropriation of the property committed to his care—are commonly and in public charged against him, while, when we seek for information in reference to individual acts, it is as difficult to discover as it is impossible to substantiate them. For my present object Mr. Sewell's letters to Lord Lyttelton, and his letter to the Rev. Mr. Jacobs, lay the case, as regards Ecclesiastical and Educational pux'poses — sufficiently before the public to act upon. If in these statements there is any thing to gainsay, why have not the Church Trustees placed their answer to, or their charges against Mr. Sewell as fairly before the same tribunal. The head and front of Mr. Sewell's offending is in not transferring to the Trustees that portion of the property of the Association which he is said to hold in trust for Ecclesiastical and Educational purposes. His answer to them was however clear and explicit— " It would be impossible to transfer the Endowments until the Ordinance has been allowed, or the time of disallowance has expired, by which time, I shall have returned from Auckland, and probably by that time the arrangements will have been completed for bringing into action the elective and permanent body of Trustees." But do we find Mr. Sewell withholding the particulars they asked for, while as a lawyer, and a profound one too, he is acting thus cautiously; not so, for- on the 17th of April, 1854, he forwarded to Mr. Jacobs the documents they desired,and thus writes: — "I believe these particulars to be substantially accurate, but they are meant only for general information, not as final and exact." Prominent among Mr. Sewell's sins of

commission is an alleged illegal alienation of lands devoted to Ecclesiastical and Educational purposes. This charge is publicly announced by the Trustees in their advertisement of the 22nd of July. His authority then is questioned, and that too as though the information was for the first time conveyed to .them. But what says Mr. Sewell in his letter to Mr. Jacobs. The following is the state of the property held for " general Ecclesiastical and Educational purposes," and he enumerates certain lands which have beck sold, or are under contract far sale, while others are let'with a right of purchase. He then proceeds to furnish an account extending over 21 years, and in his letter he says, — "In cases where there is a right of purchase, if the same be exercised, the rental will be •thereby reduced. But the reinvestment of the purchase money will give an equivalent substitute for rent." He passes on from this subject to the matter of accounts —which he says have been laid before the Provincial Council— sbut as some of the Trustees are also Councillors, they can readily supply themselves with all the information they need respecting themf; and he writes, " I have stated fully all that occurs to me as necessary for conveying a general idea of the state of the affairs," and ends by referring them to his letter to Lord Lyttelton, a copy of which he had furnished, and in reply to which he has Lord Lyttelton's approval of the suggestions he then made in reference to the management of thisjjranch of the Association's property. Let us turn then to this letter to Lord Lyttelton, possibly we may there detect Mr. Sewell's Jintruthfulness, his want of candour, his subterfuges and evasions. He begins then— " I find everywhere a complaint of what ib termed a failure of the Association's Church plans. ... As the case stands, the worjld points at our large promises in the early stage of our undertaking, and contrasts them with our actual performances. . . . You have not built a single churoii. This is a mntter of constant reproach to you. You have, it is true, contributed £500 to the church at Lyttelton, but you have permitted it to be built by private subscription, and at the risk of private individuals who have 71020 a debt on their hands of about £320." He then adds—" The assumption of this debt would in my opinion redeem the Association's liability as regards this particular locality." Mr. Sewell then proceeds with his enquiry into the amount of their liabilities, and we again find mention made of this particular sum of £320; but as if to meet this charge, he takes especial credit for a like sum in the words,— " We may calculate on some beneficial sales of land at Kaiapoi, perhaps to the extent of £320." But he says, " / rely on your Lordship and other parties concerned to sanction these arrangements." He had suggested a private arrangement for the payment of these matters, but foreseeing a possible failure, he adds-r " The last expedient will be to sell, even at a sacrifice, such portion of the property as may be absolutely requisite for strictly necessary purposes.''^ That the Trustees can be ignorant of these clearly expressed opinions, is too much to suppose, it would indeed be attach- ' ing to them a degree~of carelessness in matters of such vital moment to themselves, and to us,' 7as wouldflay them open to the charge of utter incapacity. The recklessness of which they are said to Condemn Mr. Sewell would in part be theirs— " The faults of our neighbours with freedom wo blame, But we tax not ourselves, tho' we practice the same." Yet what is to be said for these gentlemen when we find them calling special meetings of the Trust, to consider certain hepokted cases of alienation of Church lands to members of the Lyttelton Church Building Committee; and then again to

consider whether they shall negotiate further with Mr. Sewell, and ij? not, what steps they are to take in consequence, and all this in the absence of Mr. Sewell, who wrote only in April last— " It wovld be impossible tp transfer the endowments until the Ordinance has been allowed, or the time for its disallowance has expired, by which time I shall have returned from Auckland." Mr. Sewell had already tojd the Trustees he had authority for his actions. But can we believe that he ever entertained a doubt of the legal right of the Association to alienate its lands by sale, or by leasing with purchasing clauses, when the necessity was to meet moral obligations resting upon them.? Their original property was money, not land—with the monies passing into their possession lands were bought. Is there, then, fraud or moral delinquency in reconverting a portion of the property so acquired into its original character, in order to discharge their just debts ? It is an easy way of getting over the difficulty for men to say, If the Association acted carelessly, and did not take care tp provide for their liabilities, the Committee are bound to make good the deficiency. They have squandered the sub*tance, and upon them must rest the responsibility. One fact is worth fifty assertions, and it rests with those who make the accusation to substantiate it. Much consideration is due to the projectors of the scheme, and it ill becomes the settlers to pursue these gentlemen who have exercised much patience and self-denial with so much bitterness and angry passions. Much has been done: the property they hold has increased fivefold in value, the settlement has progressed too in the brief space of its existence in a manner unparalled in the annals of colonization, and that mainly through the operation of the Association there is now so much eagerness to condemn. The Church Trustees imply that all attempts to negotiate with Mr. Sewell have failed, that he studiously avoids them, and now meet to consider " what steps are to be taken in consequence?" But let us look back a little upon Mr. Sewell's acts, and we may probably learn from the past what are his probable opinions- at the present. In his singulai-ly candid letter to Lord Lyttelton we him first suggesting a localboard of management of the temporalties, and he winds up with these words: "If we should succeed in forming, as we hope, a Church Trust, and giving it a legal constitution, so as to acquit the Association at home of all its moral and pecuniary liabilities, then so much of the foregoing conditions as reserved power to the Association would be dispensed with. This is the object to be arrived at. Nor (all parties agreeing) do I think there will be any difficulty in attaining it through the Provincial Council. In that case the transfer of the Association's Ecclesiastical and Educational functions with the endowments will be absolute and entire, and the charter will be quod hoc at an end, the Association being functur ojfficiQ. Failing- such legal transfer, or in the meantime pending the same, we must make the best makeshift we can, still retaining the Association with its chartered power, and contriving a subordinate local body of management to whom the utmost power should he committed, consistently with due security for the discharge of those obligations which" will still rest upon the Association at home, and of which it cannot, except in a legal manner, divest itself Let me simply ask, can Mr. Sewell dispossess himself of this Trust, can he complete a legal transfer, until the Ordinance has been allowed, or until the time for its disallowance has expired? If not, then why all this vapouring, why all this unseemly cavilling with words, why these threats, " until he has returned from Auckland ?" I am, Sir, Your obedient Servant, . A PXLGMM OP THE Pl^VI^S,