CORRESPENDENCE.

Lyttelton Times, Volume IV, Issue 211, 8 November 1854, Page 6

CORRESPENDENCE.

To the Editor of the Lyttelton Times.

Sir, —As an attentive observer of the political events of the past few weeks, I cannot allow your leading article of Saturday last to pass without remark. I do not complain of any amount of hostility with which you may criticise the proceedings of the new Executive, but I do regret that those proceedings themselves should"have been made the subject of misrepresentation. You state that " Messrs. Hall and Bealey now come down to the house, and support not only His Honor's amendments to their hasty .Bill, but also a new one founded on the principles of the old Executive." This sentence taken in conjunction with the context, and especially with the following words, " They have begun very well by a tacit acknowledgment of their former errors, &c." lead the public to imagine that those gentlemen have been guilty of recantation and inconsistency, and that they were formerly opposed to the amendments and the principles which they now advocate. What are the facts? The arrangement of representation which the amendments in question sought to establish, is identically that contemplated by the original Bill, when its first reading was seconded by Mr. Bealey. This same arrangement was strongly supported by Mr. Hall in Committee. Their conduct therefore in seeking to restore the bill to its original state is consistency itself. With regard to the new bill which you seem surprised at their introducing, may I ask when you found them opposed to its principles? Thef admitted all along that their own bill was merely a temporary one, and so soon as times permitted a more ' complete measure of reform was desirable^ Hence it does not appear very clear how a charge of inconsistency can on this ground be brought against His Honor's present advisers. Their conduct throughout, although the subject of much misrepresentation, appears to me to have been straightforward and consistent; nor can I discover any "tacit acknowledgement of their former error.'' I dare say, that the unfair statements of which I complain have arisen from an ignorance, on your part, of the real facts of the case ; but they are nor the less unjust to the gentlemen concerned, nor the less inconsistent with Faieplay. Christchurch/4th Nov. 1854.

To the Editor of the Lyttelton Timet,

Sir,—lf Mr. Jacobs, the Chairman, and the rest of the Church Trustees, rather than hunt out matters leading only to quarrel ami controversy, were, out of that "multitude of Councillors which begetteth wisdom," to produce something practicable, the cause of the church at Canterbury would be better served than it has been. Out of all their numerous body can they not find so much as one man who, failing any feasible plan offered by Mr. Sewell, standing single handed,— can propound something busi-ness-like for discussion ? A plan such as would speedily accomplish the purposes for which they were constituted—:lst, the transfer to competent hands of the Ecclesiastical and Educational endowments. 2nd, their own dissolution. Like Boa-constrictors the Trustees seem to indulge in periodical surfeits at sittings revolving at regular intervals of three months.

They meet,—" in a crowd.' 1 One Trustee tiilks : another Trustee talks : several Trustees talk: the Chairman talks—very much: they call in a gentleman whose profession is to talk, and to find others in matter for talk: they print all the talk: and after all this "articulated wind." what, is their conclusion? Most violent and alarming doubts whether they may carefully talk at all! Mystified as to their privilege of speech, their next doubt is of their capacity to think; and, as of mal-relief, they throw themselves upon the protection of the iongrobe. Sir, I should greatly like r for curiosity's sake, to rub a little Holloway's ointment into these Trustees, and watch the effects: it could do no harm: the results rniirht be astounding, even to the proprietor himself.

Now if these good worthy souls were to believe in themselves and in their powers a little more confidingly, if they were to set to work and lay out districts, look into the state of the property, offer some plan to Mr. Sewell if he can offer none to them, and pet some kind ot agreement drawn up, they might all quietly betake themselves home, assured'that neither

Crown, Association, General or Provincial Governments, least of all the Canterbury settlers themselves, will be very anxious to go to law and dispute these vexed titles. Half the business of the world is done under uncertainty and doubt as to its strict legality, and so must^ it ever be. Get us a plan first; we'll then see whether, in order to carry it out, we must violate law or equity. I do really hope the Trustees will see the propriety of ceasing to act so as to irritate and repel a man with whom they must of necessity do business (if they wish to do any at all) in a courteous tone and conciliatory spirit. I remain, Sir, yours, &c, Expectant.

To the Editor of the Ly Melton limes. Sir—Your correspondents have very justly, I conceive, questioned Rev. O. Matbias' title to the powers which lie seems to have arrogated to himself at the late meeting of the Church Trustees. There can be no doubt that he was originally appointed by the Association, and that he has been duly licensed by the bishop for the discharge of certain clerical functions at Clmstchurch, but beyond that town I apprehend he possesses no authority. Any attempt, therefore, to exercise such a control, is an assumption of authority on his part which will probably be disputed by the inhabitants of the plains over which he claims spiritual jurisdiction. It is said that he is as Commissary, virtually Bishop, and that he can exercise all the power and authority short of Ordination. lam however disposed to demure to this authority being delegated to him by virtue of his office of Commissary, unless exercised in conjunction with his colleague. The office is held conjointly, and I apprehend the act qf one is invalid unless confirmed by the other. It is not vow my intention to comment upon the almost uuiversal claims which Mr. Mathias sets up ; nor to question the propriety of his assuming, the perpetual post of chairman of Church meetings in conjunction with his office, but without any recognition in the Ordinance, of the impropriety of his intruding his opinions upon meetings, as chairman, when he ought simply to gather tha feelings of those who are present; but I do desire to ask the eui hono of tlie long letter which he read to the late meeting of the Trustees, signed Con way L. Rose, and drawn up, as he informs us, by Mr. Fitz Gerald, and which he quoted as proof that they were not a constituent body, and as a sufficient answer to the demands of the people at large for a dissolution of the lay Trust. It seems to me that the Rev. 0. Mathias had some other object in view in reading this letter, and it may probably be to stir up a feeling of distrust in the public mind at the friendly intercourse which has arisen out of the ministerial co-operation of His Honor the Superintendent and Mr. Sewell at Auckland. As his hand is raised against Mr. Sewell, so he would have every one's else. Lay authority shall not presume to defend, while ecclesiastical thrusts are made at his unguarded fame."The letter in question can bear no such interpretation as Mr. Mathias seeks for it; it seeks the transference to the then existing Trustees of the Ecclesiastical property of the Association, and yet in its second paragraph it admits that no actual transfer can be made until the Ordinance has been legally allowed. The Ordinance which bears date the 9lh March, is explicit enough that there shall be an annual election of lay Trustees; it seems to be the duty, therefore, of the present body nominated before the terras of the Ordinance were known, to proceed to the constitution of districts, and the definition of parishes ; and then, as naturally growing out of such an act, to declare who are the incumbents of the aforesaid parishes, who shall possess by virtue of such an office the right of nomination of an equal number of Trustees with the parishioners. It is too much to suppose that Mr. Mathias possesses the right, as he assumes he does, of nomination throughout the provinces, except, as he says, as regards Lyttelt.on, Akaroa, and Kaiapoi. As he has led us to believe it is a heavy responsibility, and. as the laily not doubting the fact, would be unwilling to impose it upon him, so they are doubtless of opinion that it would be for tlie public good if the power.;was taketi from him, and placed in the bands of those to whom it would of right belong. I am, Sir, yours &c, A Churchman.