CORRESPONDENCE.

Lyttelton Times, Volume V, Issue 263, 9 May 1855, Page 5

CORRESPONDENCE.

To the Editor of the Lyttelton Times. Sir, —In last Wednesday's Lyttelton Times, 1 am reported to have said" of Hie government members of the Provincial Council that " There was no want of confidence in the honourable gentlemen ;on the contrary, they possessed their (the Council's) entire confidence." I said it was not at all intended by those who should vote for Mr. Sewell's plan of embodying the Government Land Rate Bill and Lund Regulations into one distinct measure, to convey a vote of want of couUdeuce in the government members. 1 said thai 'On the contrary, if Mr. Se well's plan were carried, rather than that they

should interpret the vote as conveying a wish for their resignation, which, at this juncture, would cause most serious embarrassment, I would join in a distinct resolution that we had confidence in them.' And I think the Council assented generally to the testimony I offered as to the ability and great industry the government had displayed in the position they filled. But that they enjoy our " entire confidence' is what I would not venture to assert on the part of the Council, and cannot assert on my own behalf. I ask you to he kind enough to insert this, or correct a report likely to prejudice any future vote I may be called on to give. I have the honor to be, Sir, yours obediently. J. W. Hamilton.

To the Editor of the Lyltelton Times. Sir, —Your correspondent " Anii-Hunibug" states in your paper of-Saturday, April 21st, that he happens to be a land-holder near to me, aud that he knows not of a single individual who has acted as I assert. If "Anti-Humbug" will give up his name, I shall be prepared to prove all I have before stated myself, and bear it out upon the highest authority; and I again reiterate that I trust, for the benefit of others as well as-myself, that the Provincial Council will be pleased to make such amendments in the Trespass Ordinance now in force, that unless a man is wholly and substantially fenced, he shall not be allowed only nominal damages, as on pasturage land. " Anti-Humbug" states, that he has a knowledge of instances of those who have suffered considerable loss from my bullocks— this I distinctly deny: but on the Bth of March last, my bullocks, nine in number, did trespass when in the care of my boy hy running off the road into the raupo swamp called the Town reserve of Christchurch, and were instantly taken and driven to the public pound, for which I had to pay 18s. This being contrary to the present law I sought redress for illegal pounding befoTe the Resident and other magistrates, aud obtained on the 22nd of March a verdict with costs (Allen v. Sutcliffe). This might have been contrary to the wishes and expectations of those who are so fond of grasping hold of those poor defenceless animals, and depriving them of food and water, when require 1 before being yarded for the night. With regard to the enlightened fratner of the present Trespass Law, his judgment and abilities may have been wellintended, had he not been misguided by " Antihumbug." I am, Sir, Yours, &C. G. Allex.