Correspondence.

Lyttelton Times, Volume VI, Issue 385, 12 July 1856, Page 5

Correspondence.

To ihe Editor of the " Lyltellon Times." Sir.—l have to acknowledge the compliment you have paid me, in selecting me as the butt of your edi'.orial small wit, in the second number of the rejuvenated Lyttelton limes. Had you accompanied your article with a fair account of the '" strange scene " you profess to criticize, I should merely have laid your paper aside with a laugh at its transparent absurdity, and have left the public to form their own judgment upon the matter. But, as you have not done so, but insinuate that my constituents may feel their dignity,compromised hy my conduct, I am compel.cd briefly 7 to notice the charge brought against me, and to give you the correct version of the "' scene " you denounce with such magniloquence. ! Yoii say, <- We do not wish to enter at length upon the subject ; the report of the proceedings as given by our contemporary the Canterbury Standard, and Dr. Barker's letter (meant, we presume, as a reply), require no comment " ; and you forthwith proceed to favor the public with some half-a-column of comment upon it, of a character considerably on the northsideof complimentary ; and which you have only the moment before declared to W wholly unnecessary ! Such conduct is not only un-English, but unfair :—as the narrative of the 'scene' in question never appeared in your own columns, but only in an out-of-the-way corner of another paper, where, in all probability, it was seen by few, and read by fewer of your subscribers. The gravamen of your charge against me is. that I, being in a minority, presume to offer a factious opposition to a law passed by a majority ; and, although you graciously acquit me of a breach of the law, yet you state mj r conduct to be contrary to [" good order." I deny the charge in toto, and, before I conclude, shall, I trust, demonstrate

that the only breach of law and good order was committed, not by me, but by the Government and their Returning Officer. What are the facts? The Provincial Council last session passed, by the casting vote of the Speaker, a Government measure called the Roads Ordinance. ;. While it was under discussion, the Provincial Secretary continually assured the Council that it was a measure for purely voluntary taxation. The ordinance having passed, the colonists would, naturally and legitimately, become divided into two parties ; those who wished, und tiio?e who did not wish to commence the system of direct taxation. We may differ as to which of these two parties constitute the majority, but the fact that they exist is indisputable.

Now, as the rate-payers' meetings (see clause 27) may be called either by the Waywarden, or by any jjsix of the rate-payers, it is obviously as much the right, as it is the interest of those who dislike the idea of taxation, and who think it for the present unnecessary, to elect a Way-warden who shall be either one of their own party, or at least a neutral; as then the ordinance would not be brought into action, until six of the rate-payers chose to demand it. This' is what I desired to effect when, a few minutes after twelve o'clock, I asked permission of the Returning Officer to exercise my right to nominate another rate-payer, in opposition to Mr. Inwood (who, as he is understood to be desirous of levying a rate under the Ordinance, may be fairly considered as belonging to the Government party.) I was, however, refused, on the ground that the period for nomination was past. I, and two gentlemen who were present, protested against this decision, on the ground that, as no time whatever had been specified for nomination, separate from election, the two must evidently commence and terminate together ; and that, consequently, any one was at liberty to nominate during the whole period of election ; and I may ask, if it were not so, why was the poll kept open r jjWhy, when Mr. Inwood had been nominated, and one vote had been recorded in his favour, was not the election terminated, if the law really forbade the subsequent nomination of another ?

Having1 handed in my claim to vote to the Returning Officer, as a protest against the legality of the elections. I left the room. This, Sir, is a plain statement of the circumstance you endeavour to magnify into a sort of treason against the majority, and ask if I am prepared to run the chance of being massacred for my audacity ! ! It is difficult to find an appropriate answer to so puerile a jest; and I doubt whether the whole article would require a serious answer, did not the absurd fuss that has been made about this matter iudicate a determination on the part of some of our minor Provincial potentates to resent all opposition to their measures as a personal affront; a determination, in my humble opinion, as unwarrantable as unwise. Considering the enor.nous amount of complicated Government machinery we have at present in use in this|province, (costing close upon £11,000 a-yJar for the government of 5,300 people.!) one may surely be allowed to object to call into active existence a fresh set of officials, all of whom, if their work is to be properly done, will have to be handsomely paid, without being charged with factious and unseemly opposition. No doubt it would be pleasing to the Government that the "Way-wardens should be elected^ ithout opposition, because, owing to the apathy of the majority of the future ratepayers, they may be morally certain that the Way-warden first proposed in encl^ district will be of their own party ; and, it he is elected, they have thereby secured the insertion of the' thin edge of the wedge by which, at the first convenient, opportunity

they may force us to adopt a system of at first voluntary, and afterwards compulsory direct taxation. A consummation, it is true, which is sure to arrive sooner or later, but which most men, 'I imagine, would prefer postponing as far as possible. I am. Sir, Your obedient servant, Alfred C. Barker. Christchurch, July 8, 1856. *" [Dr. Barker appears to be as ignorant of the decencies of letter writing, as he is uuable'to conduct an opposition in a proper manner. We expressed no opinion about the law. The opinion we expressed was concerning Dr. Barker's notoriously unseemly conduct, and we see no reason to retract it.]— Ed. L. T.

[ ADVIi RTIS EMEST.J Fellow Colonists. —An attempt is being made to create another placeman with a large salary ! ! payable out of the already overburdened resources of the Colony. See the leader of the Canterbury Standard, of this day, advocating the appointment of a Resident Judge, and, to support the argument in its favour, stating that " ice believe" the appointment was recommended in the presentment of the Grand Jury at the late Assizes. " As one of the Grand Jury, I publicly state that no such recommendation was embodied in the presentment, and, if proposed, would have had the immediate and most strenuous opposition of the majority of the Grand Jury as being' impracticable in our present financial state. Are the Canterbury Colonists always to remain the victims of official greediness ? Yours, &c, "^ ■*" Leveller. Lyttelton. lOlh July, 1856? 7124