CORRESPONDENCE.

Lyttelton Times, Volume V, Issue 258, 21 April 1855, Page 4

CORRESPONDENCE.

To the Editor of the Lyttelton Times. Sir.—As I was one of those who approved of the memorial which was presented to His Honor the Superintendent, praying for a Corporation for the town of Lyttehou, I suppose I had reasons for doing so. If you will allow me I will tell you what toy reasons weie, for I have not altered my opinion in this matter notwithstanding the outcry which has been raised and the satire that has been directed against the rather big looking- bill proposed by government. Let me first dispose of some objections which have been made by yourself, Mr. Editor, and by your correspondents, and let me say that in my opinion, you would have done your duty to the pub\ic better, if, when the subject was discussed by the Colonists' Society, you had at once stated your objections which could have been then considered and disposed of, and you would thus have had the credit of attempting to guide opinion, and would not have been obnoxious to the charge of only following in the wake of a public outcry. In his speech at the late meeting Mr. Dampier supports your opinion, that the Provincial Council cannot make a corporation. Mr. Dampier is a very good lawyer, but I think the At-torney-General may be presumed to be as good. And the Attorney General thinks that the Provincial Council can make municipal corporations, for he advised that the Auckland Corporation Act was valid. Mr. D., if I recollect rightly t had previously said that the Provincial Council could not pass the Church Trustees Ordiuauce, because it could not make a corporation, but the Attorney General thought otherwise, and the Ordinance became law. But a man.need not go to a lawyer to read the Constitution Act. TheProvincialCtiuncil's powers are limited by express words in that act, and the power of making Corporations is not one of the things prohibited. The 70th clause enables the Crown to make Corporations, but Sir John Pakington in his despatch, clause 32, states the reason for introducing this clause, viz. ; to preserve to the Crown a power which would have been otherwise set aside by the act, and this, in order to prevent any clashing with measures which the Government might be then taking for the establishment of Corporations under the old Institutions. The legal objection, I therefore look upon as a mere quibble. Next, Mr. Hamilton and some of your correspondents are amused at the idea of.a corporation for so small a town as Lyttelton. Well, the idea ot giving legislatures at all to a Province so small as Canterbury, was ridiculed by the enemies of the Constitution Act in England. But yet I think-it-may prove that the creation of the Provincial Governments, was one of the most, if not the most valuable clause in the act. And is a Corporation for a town of 900 inhabitants more absurd than a Parliament for a district of 4,000 ? But I go further than this: I believe we should do no injury to ourselves, and nothing ridiculous, if we gave power to every twenty men, who might form a. neighbourhood, to elect their own constable, and provide Tor their own little local wants, which are better known aud will be provided for better by the 20 than by the 4000. We don't want central control so much as local liberJ-y-nn a colony. I believe that in the power iAeek here, lies much of the prosperity that has been achieved by the United States "of America. I therefore cannot by ridicule be driven to give up the principle I hold, nor can I be deterred by the fancied tenors of perpetual elections which haunt the mind of some. I for one shall never grudge the trouble of recording my vote either for tbe members of our little Parliament or of. our little Corporation, for 1 trust we shall .'realise

a " Practical outcome " both from the oue and the other. But I take another objection. Mr. Dumpier says that the bill does not provide for any property being given to the Corporation. This is tine, but how could it ? Everybody knows that the Provincial Council has as yet no property to give, but the bill enables the Corporation to hold.pmperiy, and so far an one can learn from report it is now well known that the Government did contemplate endowing the corporation with reserves about Lyttelton, which our new Ivand Regulations would enable the Provincial Council to do. I for one think that bo soon as the Association's affairs are settled all the valuable wharf property should be made over to the Corporation. And I have no doubt it wonld.be done. But again, we are to fear the power given by the law to tax ourselves, and we are threatened that Government will always reply when we want any grant of money, " Tax yourselves, you have the power." The power of taxing ourselves is a most valuable privilege, and if the privilege be used with prudence, the payment of our tax w<Mild be a saving of our pockets in more ways than one; and after all we can use the power or not as we please, for we are not to be forced to use it. And as to getting Government grants in aid of Public works, I think we stand a better chance of getting1 them when we have a body which can give expression to our wants, and to, whom can be entrusted the expenditure, of .the money. And then for the cry of expensive machinery. What expensive machinery need there be? 1 know there are many of my fellow townsmen who will be quite willing to undertake without pay the little trouble that will be involved in carrying on our affairs at first. And if, as you say, the Government tvould do the work required I yet doubt whether they would do it as cheaply or as well as we should ourselves. Lastly let me say why I think we want a corporation. First, we want to have the drainage ,of the town regulated, for we don't wish Lyttelton to "become what so many-colonial towns become, a pest-bouse. Begin now, and ibis can be prevented. Iv a few years it might be too late. To provide for the cleanliness of the town, we want, not the authority of Government officials aud inspectors, but local authority. It is .nut a Provincial matter. Let the people of Lyttelton keep Lyttelton clean and healthy. Again, I.donlt wish to see Lyttelton burnt down for want of a little local authority. It is all well enough to say, Insure. Insurance would go a very small .way towards repaying the loss and ruin which .would.follow a fire, not tomention the chance of oar friends on.the flats taking advantage of the calamity to get up.a rival.port towii at the mouth "of the" Christchurch " ditch," with jetties, breakwaters, and docks to match. Well, I want to see my neighbour prevented from building a dangerous chimney—proper ■water tanks provided—an engine procured— buckets, &c, kept-in repair, and so on. Iremember several meetings held about a fire-bri-gade. The then Inspector of Police, now promoted to the office of Superintendent, presided and enlivened our somewhat useless meetings by his wit. (Alas, he led a far happier life when he was our fellow-townsman than I fear he can possibly do now!) At those meetings we found we could do nothing effective. There was no local authority. However, an enginehouse was built, mid some buckets and ladders bought, which are falling to pieces. It is nobody's business to look after them, and so some dozen persons.paid the whole expense of what ought to have been provided Uy the town, and the money is next to wasted. Again, I want to see our streets kept in order. It is not pleasant to have one district of our small town cut off from all communication with the others,'during the winter, and it would not be undesirable to have power to caver in pitfalls, and to order a , piece of -fencing; to be put up in breakneck places, &c. But nothing of this can be done, fur we have no local authority. But to come to the Government measure. It looks a little big, and .Uncertainly frightened me .at first, especially when I saw that being opeu v,; ridicule, there was some chance of our losing what I think is so desirable to obtain. But though the powers given. to the Corporation are numerous, (many .of them I would leave out altogether), very few Would be exercised at first. And on looking through the Government bill carefully, I do not think there is so very much to cut out, that it should be rejected altogether as unworthy of consideration. But it is nut, my intention to enter into all the details

of the measure. I have only written this to try and prevent the people of Ly.ttelton from beingridiculed out of a principle, for I believe most of them are in favour of some power, of.Local Government being granted. And after all where does the ridicule come from? So far as I can judge from the arguments used, it comes from those who, having there is ,no doubt many other good and reasonable grounds of opposition, object to the very increase of the electoral principle and of popular power, and who considering themselves, as the phrase is, " gentlemen," are offended at the idea of having " snobs" in power, i fancy from the tone of their letters I hear them say—" A pretty joke to have and —— set over me as town councillors; fancy such fellows rating me." S\r,l guess this cry has been got up ,by those who perhaps unconsciously are actuated by a feeling of hostility to "the people" managing their own affairs, and are in favour of popular government only so long as it does not extend beyond their own class. I say then let us get some corporate powers* (We have not now so much as the smallest paTish in England). Get corporate power, corporate property will follow. Let the .people of Jbytteltp.n manage their own affairs,' arid I think that in a few years hence, instead of being pent up in a few streets in an unhealthy town, we shall have room to dwell and expand in, and Lyttelton will become what I have always said it might become, the healthiest.and most picturesque town in New Zealand. I am, Sir, ■'■■?,■ -..-. 1 Your obedient servant, A Willing Bubgbss.

To the Editor of the Lyttelton Times. Tt has been said niany times, and I believe most truly, that there are no poor in Canterbury. Would it not be as well therefore if the. money which is collected at the offertory in our churches, and which is I suppose intended for the poor, at least I judge so from the beautiful sentences which are read during the collection, were added to the fund now collecting in all parts of the world,,for the widows and orphans of those brave men who are falling for the cause of liberty in the east, and whose.daring exploits make the cheeks of all Englishmen who read an account of them, blush with pride at the gallant deeds of their countrymen? It will I think be a disgrice to our settlement should ho collection be made in aid of a fund which will be most readily subscribed to by every one worthy of the name of.an Englishman. Alpha.

To the Editor of the LyHelton Times. Sib,—Your covrespondent, George Allen, in Saturday's paper, says, "There are people in the Settlement who sow five or six acres of a fifty acre section with oats, as a trap or bait for all their neighbour's cattle, far and near, and if trespassed on, the law allows|damages that encourages many in idleness who thus procure a living." Now, Sir, I happen to be an occupier of land near to that which is held by George Allen, and I know not of a single instance of any individual who has acted as he asserts, bat I know instances of those who, after suffering very consider- ' able loss by trespass from his bullocks, have at last—when all remonstrance was found to be unavailing—been driven to the necessity of demanding " ordinary damages," not as a compensation for the loss sustained, but in the hope that such a step would make George Allen take the care of his cattle which the enlightened framer of the present trespass law intended the owners of wandering bullocks to exercise. 1 therefore entirely and distinctly deny that there is a single cultivator in Canterbury "who has set a trap or bait for his neighbotirs cattle, or has been enabled to live in idleness from the proceeds of trespass," which the law empowered him to obtain, or who has not suffered damage to the amount of twenty shillings for every shilling he ever realized nniier the provisions of the present Trespass Law ; and I now emphatically call on George Allen to specify distinctly by name those persons whose character he has brauded with dishonesty, otherwise the name of George Allen will hang high before the public gaze as one notoriously associated with the unenviable distinction of publicly asserting direct falsehoods. Yours, &c. Akti» Humbug.