Correspondence.

Lyttelton Times, Volume IX, Issue 587, 19 June 1858, Page 4

Correspondence.

To the Editor of the Lyttelton Times.

Sir,—The pilot sings "Fear not but trust in Providence," verily I think that the masters and owuers of some of our vessels do the same, at least I am led to suppose so on reading an article in your paper of to-day under the head of "shipping news"; from which it appears that the Ocean Queen (thanks to Providence) had arrived at Wellington on the 10th inst., the said Ocean Queen having left Canterbury on the 10th April. Now it appears from the report of Capt. Oakes, of the Emerald Isle, that although the vessel was driven out to sea, the master did not keep any reckoning. This fact alone must appear monstrous to all persons in any way connected with shipping, that life and property should thus be placed in jeopardy, for I think that such occurrences (this not being the first similar mishap of the Ocean Queen) might in a great measure be provided against, if those parties concerned were to take the matter into serious consideration. There are plenty of skilled seamen in Canterbury and men who know the coast welL Why then do not owners engage such men? The answer to such a question would most likely be—" that masters of most of the coasting vessels were part owners of the vessels they command." Allowing such to be the case I cannot see why our property ought to be left to the charge of such persons, who could for a moment mistake the Chatham Island for any part of either the North or South Islands of New Zealand, and who apparently would have us do as they most likely do themselves, viz., "Fear not but trust in Providence."

I am, sir,

Your obedient servant,

VERITAS.

16th June, 1858,

To the Editor of the Lyttelton Times.

Sin,—l have noted not without interest the recent correspondence on the sale of church land. Without wishing to carry on the discussion, I would fain as an 'outrider'obtrude a few remarks.

My enquiries afford me hut poor satisfaction at the past and but small hope for the future administration of the estate which I have with others helped to acquire for the church.

Passing by the question of general principle involved in allowing trustees annually removable to alienate a trust estate (the danger of which I may however observe was so clearly exposed by the chief justice in his speech on the Church Constitution Bill), I must avow that in common with many I have as little confidence in the present as in the past management of our property. Of the selection of an agent by the managing committee, it is enough to remember that a man of advanced age was preferred (partly I believe through his own trustee vote) to one much younger; the latter a tried and energetic land agent, of active habits, equal to any amount of bodily fatigue, and thoroughly acquainted with nearly every person and every place in this province oyer which our estates are scattered far and wide; while the former, I am bold to assert at the timefof his acceptance by himself and the committee, had never set foot on the Peninsula beyond Port Lyttelton, had I believe never even visited Kaiapoi, and of the rest of the province anywhere ten miles from Christchurch must have been profoundly ignorant. This was not the first unaccountable selection of an agent for the Church Property.

It need hardly be observed that upon the agent of the Church Property Trustees (following the law of all agencies for land, secretaryships of companies and other corporate bodies) must solely and entirely depend its profitable administration; and that, above all others, one indispensable element of success lies in his intimate knowledge of residents and localities, and in his power and habit of frequent locomotion in a new country where values are daily altering and in the main rapidly increasing.

Now while you regularly advertise in your columns Church property for occupation, our agent has not only now been absent from the province nearly three months and is certain to be so for three if not four more, —but, when within our boundaries,he can rarely if ever, from the very nature of his avocations, leave Christchurch, what can he know of our estate. 1

We have a right then to pause and consider how our property has been judicially cared for before proceeding to recommend wholesale: speculation with it; to ask, —is his salary (?) or whatever his commission may amount to, being drawn while this absence lasts?—what meanwhile becomes of our property? where are intending occupants (or our committee) to find the manager of the estate? Why!—in the 36th degree south latitude while the estate and ourselves are in the 44th—500 miles distant by the nearest route.

In the face of these facts are we deliberately and advisedly to encourage buying and selling, investing and re-investing? And this because we churchmen decline our duty: and in many cases are either meanly contented to accept the surrender of his privileged sabbath days' rest and the gratuitous services of a, clergyman who depends for a living on his week's hard manual labour, or are not ashamed to provide for him less than an ordinary day's wage. We can give thousands towards patriotic funds, Indian relief funds, Fitzgerald testimonials, harmonic societies steam navigation; we can spend some £30,000 or £40,000 a-year in the acquisition of crown lands alone; and our. contributions in seven parishes to the officiating clergyman amounted in the year 1857 to £597 4s. 3d., equal according to the last census, to 3s. per head per member of the church.

The highest stipend subscribed was £197 10s 2d., the lowest, £9 10s. Why, for sitting two days a-week at the Waste Lands Board our agent receives pay at the rate of £100 per annum, a Chief-Commissioner, £350, while a Provincial Secretary is thought worth £400 and his Clerk £250.

The Wesleyans, returned at less than 400 souls the Presbyterians, at 400, all individually tar less wealthy than ourselves, returned at 3,931, are generally reputed to subscribe nearly £1 per head for the minister's stipend alone. It is at least toown that they pay him well.

But they don't shame us: and Mr. Raven rightly says " the church is starved." My object in these remarks is mainly to recall attention to the original subject of discussion by your correspondents. For I observe a letter of Mr. Wylde's, which wanders from the general question into a voyage of discovery after the motives which prompted Mr. Raven to write, and opens up matter personal to that gentleman and the parish of Kaiapoi, and foreign to the question. I may, by the way, observe, that the Bishop's circular money account of 1857, shows for Kaiapoi, a fund raised— Three special offertories £5 10s. Subscriptions Nil Surplice fees 4 0

£9, 10. Really (after this not the only instance), the subject of liberality to our clergy had better have been left alone. Kaiapoi, I understand, is now placed in charge of a missionary, paid out of the general total. I am sorry Mr. Wylde has quitted the argument which it was pleasant to follow with him while pursued fairly and in the style becoming a newspaper correspondence. Though as yet unconvinced by him, I hope he will resume it on the general question, and pardon a by-stander for remarking, that a search into the objects and motives which may possibly actuate a writer, can neither affect the question at issue nor destroy his arguments; but only shake our faith in the sincerity of his advocacy. I remain, sir, your obedient servant, OBSERVER.