CORRESPONDENCE.

Lyttelton Times, Volume V, Issue 264, 12 May 1855, Page 4

CORRESPONDENCE.

To the Editor of ike Lyttelton Times. Sir, —I have this day read in the Gantepjj^ry Standard of the 3rd inst., a letter, signed J. McLean, which has, I own, astonished me not a little. So full is this epistle of the grossest misstatements, and so characterised by reckless disregard of facts, that being acquainted with the merits of the case, I cannot refrain from contradicting the one and exposing the other. Passing by the offensive and disgusting personalities, (which it appears by the heading the Canterbury Standard could not admit except as an advertisement), Mr. M'Lean hss hazarded

statements utterly at variance with the truth. In his audacious attack he equally impugns the honesty of Mr. J. Hall, and the official integrity of the Crown Lund Commissioner, and warming with the heat of his own abuse, he triumphantly appeals to the public to judge, challenging and daring any one to dispute his assertions. With the Messrs. M'Lean's returns, true or untrue, I have nothing to do ; it is with Mr. J. M'Lean's accusations I have to deal, and these I both can and dare prove to be most wanton perversions of facts. The Canterbury Standard, in a late article (disingenuously enough) states " the name of Hall to cover 70,000 acres," unfairly ignoring the number of individuals of that name amongst whom such country is divided, Of that unfair statement Mr. M'Lean adroitly, but not very honestly avails himself, and artfully improving upon it, asserts this pasturage to be held by Mr. J. Hall alone. That this is untrue a reference to the maps at the Land-office will at once shew. With regard to the stock for this 70,000 acres, concerning which Mr. M'Lean appears to be labouring; under so strange a delusion, defying any denial of his statement, I must inform him that his statement is ridiculously incorrect. The amount of stock held by the Messrs. Hall for their runs, has been pronounced by the proper authorities, to whom alone stockowners are responsible, amply sufficient to fulfil the requirements of the law. To those authorities every facility for investigation will be afforded if required. The above is a sample of Mr. M'Lean's close adherence to facts. The tenor of his admirable composition seems to me singularly redolent of the temper and frame, of mind in which one may imagine a man to be who has had his airy castles rudely demolished, by the baulking of a clever attempt to get hold of a neighbour's run. I write this letter both as~bearing the unfortunate name which on the map so interferes with Mr. M'Lean's plans and excites his ire, as part holder of the land m question, and as pt.rt proprietor of the flocks which he has subjected to a peculiar process of con traction. I candidly admit that Mr. M'Lean applies this convenient process with equal skill ancrdelightful impartiality to his own case, with this amiable peculiarity however, that in the latter he contracts his runs, whilst for us, he cuts down our stock. His elegant epistle is so worded, as to lead the uninitiated to believe that Messrs. M'Lean hold 20,000 acres only, 10,000 of which "are supposed to exist somewhere." (Fancy if you can these extravagant gentlemen paying rent for lands supposed to exist somewhere !" It is to be hoped its existence is more probable than Mr. J. M'Lean's facts). He will'of course feel agreeably surprised to learn that in addition to the above, Mr. A. M'Lean has held for some time a license for 46,000 acres on the Ashburton. This, together with an application for Mr. J. Hall's run, (22,000), for a considerable portion, say half, of Mr. Hazlewood's,and for additional pasturage adjoining that supposed 'to exist somewhere," would, if granted, make up a modest little amount of some 120,000 acres, —not a bad allowance for 1700 sheep, 40 head of cattle, and 2 horses. To Mr. J. M'Lean's pet motto, of " Ye manna meddle wi me," I would advise his opponent to add," nor wi my run." I am, Sir, Your obedient servant, Geo. H. Hall. Kaitoruko, May 5, 1855.

Fo the Editor of the Lyttelton Times. Sir, — lam delighted to find that after three weeks'deliberation, your correspondent, George Allen, has formed the virtuous resolve to try "to redeem his character from the charge of bavin*l" rashly published statements which appeared to be much more easily asserted than substantiated. A. clear and intelligibly expressed list of the names, residence, crops, and actual gain of those '.' who have set a trap or bail for their neighbour's cattle, and have been enabled to live m idleness from the proceeds resulting from trespass," would be a valuable statement in favour of an alteration of the existing Trespass law, and would mightily influence the Provincial Councillors in arriving at a decision favourable to his pathetic solicitation " that they would be pleased to license him—-for nominal damages to feed his nine bullocks on his neighbour's crops," which damages his daily four guinea earnings would comfortably enable him to pay. A request so modest it would be monstrous in-

humanity to " the poor defenceless animals," and shamelessly unprotected bullock owners to refuse. Having had neither the opportunity to mislead, nor the ability to misguide, the enlightened framer of the trespass law, your correspondent George Allen gives me an importance to which I am by no means entitled, and to indiscreetly divulge the humble name I bear, might only retard the exposure, his position, his character, and his promise has alike pledged him to afford ; after which I shall furnish you with the sayings of George Allen, and the doings ofhis"nine defenceless animals." Yours truly, Anti-Hombug.

To the Editor of the Lyttelton Times. The public attention has been of late so exclusively directed to the price of land, that we have almost lost sight of the nearly as important question of pasturage rents. I do not understand what has occurred to call for the raising of the rents outside the block, as it seems the intention of the Provincial Council to do. The experience of all the rest of New Zealand, not to mention that of the Australian colonies in general, shows, that the rents paid under Sir George Grey's regulations ought not to be altered ; and I do not think that the limited experience of the people of this settlement ought to outweigh that of the older colonists, unless we are to be guided by the new light shed upon colonial affairs by ih&tastonishinglypractical^body, the Canterbury Association ? Yours, &c, OUTSIDEB.