Untitled

Lyttelton Times, Volume IV, Issue 191, 30 August 1854, Page 4

" The affair stands thus." Yes, truly, and hath stood for some time ! Why, Sir, this is the old story. Mr. Sewell said the same two years ago! He informed us that at the period of the transfer of the £10,000 from the hands of the Trustees of the Colonial Bishopric Fund to the Association in October, 1851, that these eminent lawyers approved of the mortgage, and of placing it upon the lands in question.

This is clearly what Mr. Godley alludes to, nor is there any reason to believe that a fresh opinion has ever been obtained. If there had been it would have been both the interest and duty of the Association to have forwarded it to the colony at once, and Mr. Godley would have been only too glad to have done so.

Let us now canvass the value of this "approval" which is to convince the colonists that they have been tricked out of their property in a strictly legal and correct manner. Any opinion by such men as Mr. Justice Coleridge and Mr. Forsyth would justly demand our respectful deference, (as for Mr. Selfe, he being a member of the Committee of Management, his opinion upon the validity of his own handiwork is not admissible). But this was not an "opinion:" it appears to have been merely a verbal assent to the propriety of certain arrangements, the grounds for which were laid before them by that singularly ingenuous and straightforward man, Henry Sewell, Esq. ! What would be the worth of such a case ? Even had Mr. Sewell, dropping for once the artful dodge system which has become his second nature, set himself honestly to work to give a straightforward, clear view of the case, his profound ignorance of local circumstances would have made his statement worthless. Whereas he absolutely did not know till he came here the difference between the Town reserve and Hagley park! A very important feature in^he case, be it remembered.

But such a wild supposition is utterly untenable. Mr. Sewell has shewn all along such a readiness to go the entire animal in the service of his employers, that we should do his talents the grossest injustice if we imagined he could not make out a perfectly impregnable prima facie case for these eminent lawyers to give a legal opinion upon, even had they ever done so, which I don't believe they did.

Besides we have good evidence that their "approval," such as it was, was not consi-

dered satisfactory either by Mr. Gell or the Association, else why do they betray such a morbid anxiety that the Provincial Council should remove all doubts about their title by a declaratory act? Why, having this favourable opinion, did Mr. Gell refuse to come out?

He wrote and told us why not —and Mr. Sewell discreetly concealed his letter ! Doubtless the Association would be well pleased if the Provincial Council were soft enough to pass a declaratory act in favour of their title, as their doing so would effectually put them out of court in case upon further information they should be led to doubt the legality of these obscure transactions.

The trick is ingenious, but stale! The colonists at Nelson had once a dispute with the New Zealand Company, and desired that the case might be laid before counsel at home. The New Zealand Company did so, and got an opinion adverse to themselves and in favour of the colonists. They immediately sent the case to another lawyer, and getting this time an opinion favourable to themselves, transmitted the second opinion to the colony, and concealed the first. The poor Nelson folks submitted to their fate, and formally acknowledged the rightfulness of the New Zealand Company's claim, placed it out of their power ever after to complain of it. In a few years the first opinion turned up, and with it, proh pudor, the consent of Her Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies to its suppression ! Proving, alas, that" even noblemen can sometimes consent to play the knave at second hand. I do not mean to infer that the present case is anything so bad as the Nelson one, nor, whatever it may be, is there any probability that Mr. Godley is party to it. But I must confess it gives ground for dismal suspicion that although relieved from his bodily presence, the leaven of the old man still lingers in the constitution of the Association.

With regard to the Bishop, no one can be more anxious than I am for his advent, but I consider that nothing would so retardhis usefulness as that he should have to draw his income from a source which would be liable to bring him into collision with his fellow colonists. Whatever may be the delay, let us first make that matter straight, and as Mr. Godley it seems has not complied with Mr. Hamilton's request to obtain the opinion of competent counsel, we must even apply for it ourselves, which I trust we shall shortly be able to do. Apologising to Mr. Hamilton if I have misunderstood him, and to you, Mr. Editor, for inflicting so long an epistle on you, I remain, your obedient servant, Alfred C. Barker. Christchurch, Aug. 28, 1854. [We should be glad if our Correspondent would confine himself to the subject upon which he writes, without digressing at such length to attack his particular enemies. He seems to live in an atmosphere of plots and tricks, but we cannot share in the horror he feels at his supposed discovery of a new trap.]