CORRESPONDENCE.

Lyttelton Times, Volume IV, Issue 210, 4 November 1854, Page 6

CORRESPONDENCE.

I To the Editor of the LyHelton Times. Sir, —Mr. Wakefield proposes to meet his Constituents at last, and in four different sections— viz. at Christclmrch, Riccarton, Papanui, and Kaiapoi. Lucky dogs!—to receive four Lectures each of as many hours' duration delivered in the truly Wakefieldian style of oratory. Besides, the Gentleman who had the honour of possessing the confidence of His Excellency the Officer administering the Government — for four-and-twenty hours— meets his constituency armed only with conscious innocency—alone—minus even tlu paternal patting. The visit is arranged sectionally and topographically, like that of a pedestrian postman. But this has its object; for no doubt it would be inconvenient for the hon, gentleman to stake all his hopes on one cast of the political die. It is possible that one out of the four sections may be found willing to hurl up their slouchers for this younger " Traitor to the South," and to trail their blue shirts for compensation. It is futile to speculate which may be the favoured section ; judging orthographically, 1 should suppose, Papanui has been talked of. 'What an opportunity for enviable distinction! Sawpits and Sawyers ye may be immortalized ! ye may travel along the dusty road of posterity your brows i Jumined with an halo reflected from the fame of Wakefield. The cry of " Wakefield and Papa-xmi" may awaken echoes in the Auckland Council-chamber; and as the term " hearts of oak" has become an essential element in the British constitution, so may "Papanui blocks" become equally celebrated in the annals of this " model Province." Shout but the thrilling cry, " Wakefield and Compensation," or " Teddy and Schnapps," and your history has begun — you have a '• Metoikos." Bushmen—as Napoleon would have said, " Behold your destiny." Wishing the honourable gentleman a speedy return to the Wanganui, I remain, yours, &c, I A Bushman. To the Editor of the Lytielton Times. Sir, —I sincerely wish it were not necessary to make any reply to the letter of Mr. Sewell, which appeared in your paper of the 25th of October, because I am most anxious to avoid anything which may tend to disturb the harmony of the negotiations now pending between that gentleman and the Church Property Trustees. But in a matter affecting the conduct of so many individuals, it is not ri<>ht that the public should remain under misapprehension. I must therefore be<r of you to insert the following remarks on Mr. Sewell's letter:—

1. With regard to Mr. Gell's letter. Mr. Sewell's own account is, that his understanding with Mr. Gell was, that the letter " should not be published, but that its contents might be communicated to persons interested." But who are "persons interested?" Were not all churchmen interested in a mutter which concerned the appointment of their Bishop? Was not at least that Committee interested, consisting of all the licensed clergy and most of the leading laymen in the Province, and charged by the churchmen of the Province with the special duty of enquiring into the causes of the delay in the consecration of a Bishop ? Were the clergy only interested, to whom Mr. Sewell says that he requested Mr. Paul to communicate the contents of the letter ? And the Church Committee, be it remembered, did not ask for the publication of the letter, neither did the eventual publication of it emanate from them as a body; they only requested that it might be communicated to them" in order that, in pursuance of their researches into the causes of the delay in the appointment of a Bishop, they might be in possession of the then BishopDesisn^"-'- ow r . views of die matter. And

I they were led te make this request in consequence of some Memoranda in Mr. Gell's handwriting, laid before them by Sir T. Tancred, to whom, on the eve of his departure from England, they had been given by Mr. Gell, these,^ Memoranda consisting of brief heads of con'tfrJF^ tions on which he was prepared to accept vhe Bishopric, and referring at the end for further information to the letter written by him to Mr. Sewell on the departure of the latter from England. There appears no hint on Mr. Gell's part of any desire for all this secresy and mystery in a public matter. And the contentsof the letter itself surely afford ample proof that it was not intended for the information of the clergy only, or even chiefly, since it refers altogether to arrangements to be made by the Provincial Council, and to the wishes of the colonists in general. With regard to the part taken by Mr. Paul in this matter, I shall be happy to satisfy any one who will do me the favour of calling on me, as I have in my possession a letter from Mr. Paul on the subject, very full and distinct, and completely exonerating him from any share in the suppression of this document; but, as he expressly prohibits me from printing or publishing it in the newspapers, I am not at liberty to take farther notice of it here. I can only say for myself, and I know that I may speak for others of the clergy also, that, if the conteuts of Mr. Gell's letter ever were communicated to us, it was in so vague and general a ir;<ii<ncr, ih&t we have not the slightest recollection of it. One thing, at any rate, is certain, that at a very full meeting of the Ckurch Committee, held more than four months after Mr. Sewell's arrival, and at which Mr. Paul was present, a resolution was passed without a dissentient voice to request Mr. Sewell to communicate a copy of this letter to the Committee, and that Mr. Sewell distinctly declined to do so. And now, Sir, I imagine that your readers will think that they have heard enough of this matter. I can only say that lam as weary of the unprofitable subject as any one can be, and that it shall never be willingly revived by me. I. Mr. Sewell says, " With respect to the Mortgage Deed, securing the Bishop's endowment, and which I am said to have kept out of sight, there is not the slightest pretence for such a statement. That deed has been in the public Registry Office since the month of Janmuy last, and is there now. 1' Surely Mr. Sewell himself, on farther reflection, will scarcely consider this an ingenuous statement. Could he possibly have kept it more out of sight than he has done, without running the risk of its being invalidated through not being registered? Is it to be believed that any one in his senses would commit his deeds to the Registry Office of Canterbury, if he could avoid it? But the simple truth is, that at the same full meeting of the Church Committee, to which I have before alluded, held last year twelvemonth, a resolution was passed, also without a dissentient voice, to request Mr. Sewell to communicate to the Committee a copy of the Mortgage Deed, and that he distinctly declined to do so. These iacts appear on the minutes. I can also bear witness that Mr. Sewell was repeatedly asked in private to produce the deed, but without success. Now, whether Mr. Sewell was right or wrong in not ; then producing the deed, how can he account ■ for the statement now made, that there is not ■ " the slightest pretence" for saying that the ■ deed was *' kept out of sight" by him ? Hoff ■ could it, I repeat, have been more "kept out m of sight" than'it was? When at length he was || compelled" to lodge it in the public Registry X Office, we were not made acquainted with the Ij fact, so that it was not till many months after- If wards that we obtained copies of this, and als» 1\ of the Deeds of Appropriation of the Ecclesias- 1| tical and Miscellaneous Reserves. Moreover, X if Mr. Sewell adopted by preference this si»g«- if lar mode of giving publicity to these documents, n why did he not 'place them in the Registry m Office several months earlier than he did ? V 5 j) X 3. With regard to the Deeds of Disclaimer^ m appended to the Mortgage Deed. Suppose m them to be mere matters of form, "&' F* affecting iv any way the validity of the Moi • » gage Deed, and what follows? Why, surely, fc that it would have been far belter w |, have laid these deeds fairly before us, anu i» | J have explained what appears to us strange an^ p, inconsistent to the uninitiated, instead of lea*!~° X us to ferret them out for ourselves with ""^ |y; cuky and expense, when doubt.and surmise I' 3 ||! been excited by long delay, and many I'ctusa ij to produce them. Under these circumstance |jp

it was sufficiently startling to unprofessional minds to find it recited in the body of the deed, tkat live individuals there named, a nobleman, a bishop, and three clergymen, had been ap.'^jed to for their consent to do less a matter TfiaiV the loan of the entire Bishopric Fund, (10,000/.) and that they had given their consent, and then to find formal Deeds of Disclaimer appended to the deed, in which two out of the five parties separately declare that they never have consented to the transaction, and that they disclaim all connection with it. But to pass over this- legal fiction, what are we to think of the glimpse we obtain, from Mr. Sewell's own account of this matter, of the mode in which the Ecclesiastical affairs of the Association were managed ? The interval between the date of the Mortgage Deed, and that of the Deeds of Disclaimer, is exactly a twelvemonth, and yet for this long period it appears that the Bishop of Norwich and Mr. Wynter were " not aware of the Trust standing in their names," but had been made parties without their knowledge to a responsibility which, as soon as they were made aware of it, "they were anxious to repudiate. 4. As to the grants of Church Land to certain members of the Lyttelton Church-Building Committee, Mr. Sevvell thinks that objection ought to have been made to this and other plans of his, if at all, at the time when he read his despatch to Lord Lyttelton to the Meeting of the Church Committee at Christchuvch. I know that objections were n>ade by several of the members individually, and I am not aware that approval was expressed byany.and lavn certainly quite at a loss to imagine what could have led Mr. Sewell to " believe that the Committee approved of his suggestions." The fact is, the Committee always carefully guarded against constituting itself or being considered, a Committee of advice to Mr. Sewell. The history of the Society of Land-Purchasers was ever before their eyes as a warning against this course. They endeavoured ■ steadily to keep in view throughout that they were appointed for three specific purposes—for promoting the establishment of a Church Constitution, for negotiating . with Mr. Sewell for the transfer of the Church Property, and for furthering the appointment of a Bishop for Christchurch. Therefore they considered it no business of theirs as a body to offer an opinion on the multifarious and complicated matters discussed in Mr. Sewell's despatch, except in so far as they were connected with the ; objects above-mentioned. With regard to the ' giants themselves, enough has been said before. 5.- I come lastly to the popular and effective, but somewhat unsubstantial plea of absence. This is the best ai'row in Mr. Sewell's quiver. Such good use has been made of it indeed, that I really think Mr. Sewell owes us a debt of gratitude for supplying him with it. - Certainly, this absence.of body is amply atoned for in his i case by presence of mind. But seriously, Sir, I must protest against the idea of a person, who has gone to Auckland by the last steamer, and may return by the next, being absent in such I -a sense, that business of a public nature affecting him must be suspended till his return. A i person who has gone to Auckland with the in- \ tention ofreturning shortly, is scarcely so much I absent from us as one who resides at Akaroa, < certainly not so much so as many who are I living in the outlying districts of this Province. I In conclusion, I can only express an earnest | desire that these weary and unprofitable dis- | cussions may speedily be terminated by some | practical settlement of these tangled affairs. I Praying your kind indulgence for the length to I "which these"remarks have extended, | I remain, Sir, I Your obedient Servant, | Henjiy Jacobs. i Christchurch, November Ist, 1854. To the Editor of the Lyttelton Times. Sir,—Tn the number of your paper published on October 25th, there is a letter written by Mr. i ,£<:<- ■.*;.; in which he states, when referring to L.l-. Gell's letter, that he " placed the letter in j the hands of Mr. Paul, principal acting [-^Bishop's Commissary, requesting him to comI muuicate its content* to the clergy, which I \ believe he.did." \ Now, in this, Mr. Sewell seems to be in error, I for lately, when conversing with Mr. Paul ! upon this subject, he told me that the letter in I question was shewn to him as a private commul nicatimi on the part of Mr. Sewell, and as such \he had.always considered it. Indeed the most | patural way of communicating the letter to the

Clergy would have been by forwarding a copy of it to each of the Bishop's Commissaries, Mr, Paul and Mr. Mathias: but, as we know that Mr. Gell sent a copy of his letter to Siv Thomas Tancred, it is evident that it was not his intention to communicate it to the clergy alone, who could by no means consider themselves exclusively as " persons interested " in its contents. I am, Sir, Your obedient servant, Samuel Bealey. Chrtetchurch, October 28th, 1854. To the Editor of the L/jlteltan Times. October 30, 1854. Sir, —I observe with surprise in your report of the meeting of the Church Trustees that an assertion of the Rev. Chairman that he would have the distribution of the Ecclesiastical districts was allowed to pass unquestioned. By section 9. of the Ordinance, the power of constituting and defining parishes is given to the trustees with the limitation that no existing parish should be altered without the bishop's sanction. I am also told, that Mr. Mathias asserted, that no one but himself could nominate lay trustees in the Riccarton, Papanui, Governor's Bay, and other districts, by section No. 1. It is explained that the principal clergyman officiating in the principal church, chapel, or place, shall be understood to be the." incumbent" for the purposes of the act, i.e. to nominate trustees. If Mr. Mathias argues that it is in virtue of his appointment as Commissary that these functions devolve upon him, I must submit that he assumes powers that no bishop possesses. The division of parishes, is (in England at least,) performed by tbe Jay power, the bishop only licensing the clergy nominated to the new parish or district. But, Sir, we have so often heard of the " Commissary" arrangement that I think it desirable that the important document appointing Commissaries should be made public. I and others, understood at the time, that all that was conveyed was power to license the clergy, (then arriving every month) to exercise their vocation in the Canterbury Settlement. As a churchman, I must protest against the exercise of episcopal functions without consecration. 1 am, Sir, Your obedient servant, A " Trustee." To the Editor of the Lyttelton Times. Sir, —From the report of the meeting of Church Trustees in your last issue it would appear that those gentlemen are labouring under a sort of permanent suspension oF standing orders, which enables the chairman himself to engage in the discussion of questions before the meeting. I have attended many meetings similar to the one now referred to; and always found that if the chairman wished to express his opinion upon any matter in debate, he vacated the chair for the purpose, and his place was temporarily supplied by some other person. It is so obviously impossible for any person to regulate or keep order in a discussion in which he takes a part; or even under such circumstances to maintain the orderly conduct of the meeting, that there can be little hope of the meetings of the Church Trustees assuming a practical and business like character, unless this wholesome rule be for the future more strictly observed. I am, Sir, Your obedient servant, A Layman. To the Editor of the Lyttelton Times. Sir, —I feel confident that, in justice tome, and for public information, you will give the earliest possible publicity in your columns to the following correspondence :— Registrar General's, &c., Office, Christchurch, 28th Oct., 1554. Sir,—l observe in the Lytielton Times of the 25th instant, a letter addressed by you to the editor of that paper, containing the following paragraph :— "2. With respect to the Mortgage Deed, securing the Bishop's endowment, and which I am said to have kept out of sight, there is not the slightest pretence for such a statement. That deed has been in the public Registry Office since the month of January last, and is there now." In the Record Book, which contains a copy of this Deed of Mortgage, there is the usual attestation when deeds are returned, after the Registry is completed, to their owners, or to the

persons who presented them for that purpose viz. *■ ; " Compared and received by me this 2nd day of March, 1854. (Signed) 0..8. Fooks, for Richard Wormald, Solicitor, Lyttelton." I have the honor to be, Sir, Your very obedient servant, James Campbell, Registrar General, &c. Henry Sevvell, Esq., Lyttelton. Registrar General's, fyc-, Office, Christchurch, April 27, 1854. Sir, —I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of yesterday's date ; but I regret to say that I must again refer you to mine of the 28th ult. Being, however, very anxious to complete, as far as it has been in my power, the deeds in question, I have been able to have finished the following: No. 185, date 27th February, 1852, Deed declaring the reservation of further lands for Ecclesiastical and Educational purposes. No. 186, date 27th February, 1852, Deed declaring the reservation of further lands for public purposes. If you will either be so good as to attend yourself at my office, or send a person authorized by you to compare the two above deeds, and to sign in the usual manner the Record Book, they shall be returned to you. I am sorry to say that, with regard to the other deeds, it will not be in my power to have them completed until a successor to Mr. Fooks, as principal clerk and draughtsman, has been appointed by his Excellency the Officer administering the Government of New Zealand. I hope however to learn by the "Nelson" steamer, expected at Lyttelton about the sth of next month, that a competent person has been appointed to tbe situation. I have the honor to be, Sir, Your very obedient servant, (Signed) James Campbell, Registrar General, &c. Richard Wormald, Esq., Solicitor, Lyttelton. Registrar General's, $*c, Office, Christchurch, 2nd May, *854. Sib, —I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of yesterday's date, and regret exceedingly that I can only refer to my letters which you have received on the subject of Mi*. Sewell's Deeds, and to the 38th clause of the Land Registration Ordinance. Allow <ne, however, with a view to get over the difficulty which presents itself, to suggest to you and Mr. Sewell that .you should employ at once, at your own cost, if one can be found, a competent draughtsman to copy in the Record' Book, the plans still uncopied; let him come to this office with the necessary instruments and tracing paper for the purpose, (I cannot at present procure any of the latter),where every facility shall be afforded him ; and it is for him and you to judge whether the Registration can be completed in sufficient time to admit of Mr. Sewell's taking all the deeds of the Canterbury Association with him to Auckland at the time he wishes. I am, Sir, Your obedient Servant, (Signed) James Campbell, Kegistrar-Geneial, &c. Richard Wormald, Esq., &c- &c. The foregoing letter was on the point of being sent by post to Lyttelton when Mr. Sewell him-, self called respecting the deeds alluded to. The letter to Mr. Wormald, his solicitor, being shewn to him, he highly .approved of what I suggested for his accommodation, and promised that. Mr. Cridland should at once be sent to effect the object he had in view. This embraced (plans of nearly the whole towns of Christchurch and Lyttelton. Mr. Cridland, however, never came; so that the deeds Mr. Sewell seemed so anxious to receive still remain in this office. After this any comment ou my part is unnecessary. I remain. Sir, Faithfully yours, • Jamks Campbell. Registrar-General, &c. P.S. Notwithstanding the Public Notice given of my being prepared to return a munber of deeds to their owners which, with a view to public convenience, I arranged to have completed, yet, up to this date, twenty-four of them have not been called for.— J. C