The Lyttelton Times.

Lyttelton Times, Volume V, Issue 251, 28 March 1855, Page 4

The Lyttelton Times.

Wednesday, March 28, 1855. The Municipal Corporation Bill, which has appeared in our columns, has alarmed many of the inhabitants of Lyttelton by visions of taxes levied by a new set of authorities, and innumerable additional officers imposed upon a small population. The inhabitants of the New Zealand Provinces already enjoy more representation than any community perhaps in the world in proportion to their numbers. We have only just had an increase in the numbers of the Provincial Council: and it will cer-

tainly be veiy strange if they cannot transact the business of so small a Province. If the Provincial Executive has not a sufficient staff of engineers)and other officers, it might be increased to meet the additional demand for Public Works and improvements, without the establishment of a new machinery, expensive and burdensome, which ' would absorb' in salaries and expenses of administration all the rates that could be squeezed out of a very small community. The bill now before us is one evidently drawn up with great care; and would probably be very suitable 'to a large and wealthy manufacturing town in England. [Our small village populations may, however, manage very well to contribute a share out of the Public Purse to a useful public work in any district of the Province that needs it. One of the first duties of the representatives of the different districts should be to draw the attention of the Provincial Council to the want of a grant [for the necessities of his neighbourhood. The country districts could not get on without the towns. The good repair of the streets of Lyttelton and Christchurch is important to the stockowner as well as to the citizen; and the building of bridges over rivers, and the making of roads to open up the distant country enriches the towns. For the same reason we think it unreasonable that Lyttelton should be called on to perform the Police duties, which necessarily arise in a port town. The good order and safety of the only port town in the Province is of importance to all. The inhabitants of Lyttelton are as orderly and well-disposed as the population of any other part of the settlement. It is not just, therefore, that the expences entailed by the constant arrival of shipping should be charged upon the town alone. The case is very different in an old country where there are hundreds of Port towns with different interests vicing with each other to secure the largest share of mercantile business. We have cited this only as one^instance of the inexpediency, in a young community, of separating interests which are by nature so closely united. The literal comparison between the government of England and a little Province of lour thousand inhabitants only tends to draw ridicule upon the whole principle of local [Self-Government. Surely, the Provincial Government is local enough, and constitutes a sufficient machinery for doing all we want. On the principle of those who wish for a corporation, each ward may soon be expected to point out the glaring injustice of being governied by so central a body as a City Council elected from a body of about 200 ratepayers. Corporate bodies will arise when we can afford such expensive luxuries: in the meantime, legislation forced in hot-beds before its ?proper season will be found by a poor community, a very expensive and burdensome means of obtaining Self-Go-vernment. There is one question, however, which our representatives ought to ask themselves before they proceed to deal with the question at all. Is the Provincial Council authorised by law to delegate its powers of taxation? Our readers will remember that at Auckland a large number of the inhabitants have refused to pay the City Council taxes, and that Mr. Brown, who is now Superintendent, has carried the case, before the Supreme Court. There the matter rests for the present. It will be far from prudent under such circumstances to pass a law which may be mere waste paper, and which may only lead to litigation and expence to individuals. Mr. Brown argued that the Constitution Act reserves to Her Majesty the power of erecting [municipal corporations, and that the Provincial Council have merely a veto upon the same :—

the words of the Constitution Act are as follow, (cap. 70)— " It shall be lawful for Her Majesty in and by any Letters Patent to be issued under the Great Seal of the United Kingdom, from time to time, to constitute and establish within any district or districts of New Zealand, one or more Municipal Corporation or Corporations; and to grant to such Corporation or Corporations all or any of the powers which, in pursuance of the statutes in that behalf made and provided, it is competent to Her Majesty to grant to the inhabitants of any town or borough iv England or Wales incorporated in virtuejof such statutes or any of.them; and to qualify and restrict the exercise of any such powers in such and the same manner as, by the duties aforesaid, of any of them, Her Majesty may qualify or restrict the exercise of any such powers as aforesaid in England. Provided always that all provisions of any such Letters Patent and all bye-laws or regulations made by any such Corporation shall be subject to alteration or repeal by any Ordinance or Act of the Provincial Council of the Province in which any such Corporation may be established." Mr. Brown further argued that the Auckland City Council Act would be void, even if the Provincial Council had power to erect Municipal Corporations, because it conferred on the Burgesses of Auckland "all rights and privileges which may be exercised by any body corporate." We observe that the Lyttelton Municipal Corporation Bill confers the same uncertain powers as the Auckland City Council Act. Now even Her Majesty can only grant— " Any of the powers which, in pursuance of the statutes in that belnilf made and provided, it is competent to Her Majesty to grant to the inhabitants of any town or borough in England or Wales incorporated in virtue of such statutes or any of them." As Mr. Brown points out, Her Majesty is a corporation sole—so is a Bishop. We have no guarantee that our Municipal Corporation will not take to making Fpeers and ordaining priests. Certainly, if such an ordinance is legal, they will have the power to do so. Anxious as some of our fellowcitizens may be to parody the principle of local Self-Government, we hope that they will pause before they seriously ask for such powers as these.

Considerable misapprehension appears to us to exist as to the character of the Government proposal with regard to what are commonly known as the " PreemptiveRights ofthe Canterbury Association." It may therefore be useful to recal the real facts of the case. The Canterbury Association granted to their Land-Purchasers Pasturage Licenses with pre-emptive right in the proportion of five acres of pasturage to one acre of freehold land. These licenses have, for the most part, been naturally put down on the most valuable spots of land within a convenient distance of markets, on parts of the country to which the attention of purchasers of land under the new regulations will be especially directed. Doubts, however, have arisen as to whether these licenses possess now any legal value whatever. On the one hand it is argued that they expired with the authority of the Canterbury Association over the waste lands, and that, if brought into a Court of Law they would prove ,to be worth no more than the paper they are written on ; on the other hand, it is contended that the licenses in question are binding on the present Government, and entitle the holders for an indefinite period to the privileges conferred by the Canterbury Association. Much learned argument has still left the matter in the same position. The Government Land Regulations do not touch the subject at all; but in the remarks with which they were introduced a compromise was suggested ; viz. that these " Preemptive Rights" should be continued

in fcce for six months after the new regulatids became law, and should then cease. A compromise is of course an arrangement to&ich both parties must agree; and as may of the holders of" preemptive rights" do'iiot seem inclined to accept the above pr^osal, there is, apparently, an end of the nufcer. As far as we can see, no one ever probsed to legislate upon the subject agunst the wish of those most directly intereled. |lie question must now remain where it ha been for the last two years, and can oijr be decided by an appeal to a court of te.xX.,''.X:"X-