RENT AND FOOD v. WAGES.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XII, Issue 721, 5 October 1859, Page 4

RENT AND FOOD v. WAGES.

To the Editor of tie Lyttelton Times. JuiS 1" y°Wr t?' issue r Pwceive that a comiSSfv^n. 1^ himself> A Lover of Truth,"hat IS f Ptlo!S ° Some and a misprint m annnErt in- 'W letter Qn the «Bth lt' H° nhl ? P , ntly done 80 frora a dMi^ to « defend the vll n ? ergyman'"ralher th»n *P Prove theconmX f, my prc*?^io» th»* cottage property is en?»L^ P"yil 00 lllgh ft dlvidend on the capital employed, and it mny therefore be taken for granted l, mJ^ean^ ot JUOve n Y Position. But as he Ims innsolt made some misstatements, evidently with tie view to throw doubt upon my assertions, and ciiMngemiously charged me with falsehood because ot-a misprint, I thiuk it right to revert to my f ( >rmor letter, and show that I was not either in tact or intention gtdlty of false representation or personalilUwill to *n Y ipan. Ut lis see, however, vhat "A n^Yith;;--^,

He says there wjere two hovels <not one only) let for the sum named. 2nd.."The hovels were not going faster to decay than others built of similar Materials; rather the reverse." 3rd. He! denies my statement that the, hovel cost the rev. gentleman next to nothing; ,and * believes* he (the clergyman) gave £20 for the lease, und knows he paid an equal sum for repairs and. improvements. 4th.;;« The tenant did not sublet one hovel for over £40, but the two for Bs. a week." , ; Before replying to ,any of , these assertions; I would ask how " A Lover; of Truth" .found, out that I meant the particular "mansion of mud" •which has so many charms for him? There are many of these elegant family seats in Lyttelton, « large proportion-of wliicli are or were the property of a clergyman.<• I must have been so near the truth, in my., description, that "A Lover of Truth" unnustakeably'hit upon tile precise one. ,Does not this recognition of .his confirm my stateIment? Now for his objections. "There were two | hovels let" - How does he know that? Thetelergyman did not let the second hovel to his ■ tenant. i Perhaps that tenant might have taken the dilapiated thing binder his charge, and nobody interfered ■ith him in doing so, because the pile of rubbish •as so worthless. Only, think how. cheap} .Two ovels for Bs. a:week. rWell, there's no accounting >r taste;, but; the possession of the second hovel ould by me be. deemed no, acquisition, it was a ondescript thing at the best. It had no piles, no round' plate,~no scantling. The stays for its walls ere bush poles of .divers thickness, some being not lore than 2 inches in diameter, driven into the round; a, few strips; of "wood or laths were nailed «l them transversely; the: interstices being filled in iith clay. The walls thus formed wer.e .three in limber, the fourth side being formed of the natural

Sink. The fire-place was a hole' cut in the bank, ■ayed up by upright ppteslspth another spanning, r iem. A window' was considered to be out of,place a the erection, arid a small hole was substituted for t. The floor, was the virgin soil: Such was" its iriginal state; hrid it might then have been deemed illigant intoirely," but—" sic transit gloria"—now, >r rather when its possession was assumed by the pre- : ent holder, it a decrepid thing. It had been tseful in its day, but its .days ,of usefulness had ; [flne. It had served for a >.calf-pen. It had teen used: for: even less. honourable ■ purposes by the oecupants^of its more lordly .neighbour. Its yibs had been 'broken "and abstracted to boil the pot. Its thinner" upright, poles had, rotted and brokea from the xground; -and the winds ruthlessly tieating-uppn ais walls.made them pall-like wave heavily to,and fray-Alas, poor hovel, when all had- made their -ends vf x thee, they ought to have allowedtheetoiie down iiT-—pieces. -■■■■■' '< •-" Thehoveis werenot *go;ng faster to decay than others built of, similar matei-sals.".W;elli who said they-were ?, Certainly not I. -. " N But','—" A Lover, of Truth" adds—"the reverse," and so seems to insinuate that 1 had: wilfully misdescrrbed the hovel par excellence. ' NqwySirj the first tenant.under the clergyman was.a friend ,of miue, and I was frequently in the place during'his occupancy." it-, was pointed out-totne tliajb^the:b\iilding'Had beenLnearly■"brown" over at some timeVandithat;its, upper, parts on one side were trying to reachHhe', ground, ■as though it had had " a drop too much." A spiout, liad to be placed over the theJbed to throw, the rain (which then came through { the' wof in a l-stream) into'a ;large vessel placed on'the floor; A part of one of the walls was.thei-^natural 'bank,, which caused the place inside to be always damp and have a noisome smell. There' was no means -of suspending a" small dock against any of .the .walk, partly for the want of a sufficient holding; for; & nail, but chiefly on account of the walls' obliauity. *The.bedding, wearing apparel, &d;of.the familywerear^ays damp and mildewed; and:many-a'^nice' .littie garment,^which by accident ihafikslipped behind some; article of furniture and t>eeh lost siglitof <fbr a week or so, was completely ruined;by^the 1 moistdre! draining' there. If other buildirigisr "of similat^inaterials" are nb betteptbah thi^ qiierl devoutly flay—Heaven help their wretched occupants. . / V■ ". .

"A.Lover<>f Tijutiv;"'denies■j.th.at the hovel cost its reverend holder 'Vnext to nothing;" believes he gave.£2ofor thelease; and knows he paid an equal sum for ifepairs'^j&cf" Nek't to; iiothiti^ " 'is1 certainly " a vile phrased" for it might r mean oihe thing to one man, and ayery^differentthiiigto another. To me it seems-that 4she: cost of a,building which amounts to no more than fifteen months' rental of the same is " next- to nothing." " A Lover-of Truth" and I may differ about thisj and^possiblyrhave our Teasons for so differing;'the public must judge between us. This I will say, however, that if the repairs cost £20, the manwbo paid it "paid very dear'for liis whistle." That £20 was paid for the restoration of the lease I deny.; forthe.Jease.has never been restored,' and the clergyman ie -taking rent for the property ; at his periL ; . ■ .-. .'■' ,'}•■•• ■', . ■'..'■■. ■••<». :' ;. ■. The attempt to give me fhe lie about the £40 a-year.is abortive; for any one,who read the letter would see that) the figure " 4" was a mistake. And, now, s. 'few-words in conclusion./ Sly first letter on *ttßs-subject was to shew that'capital was sometimes as unreasonable in itsdemands/as'labour: that'tbe-eddeated man of money who strove to make his wealth four times as productive as it ■would .be^n other countries, should not complain that, the illiterate labourer yielded to the .•■■same, stupid selfishness. -If I succeeded in that, my end vas accomplighed. It was with no personal ill-will to the/reverend; gentleman so often (and, to, me, painfully)alluded to, that his' case wajs'c'ited as an illustration of' my argument; and still further was it from toy'thought to indulge in any rancour at his sacred profession. I know.and I rejoice to know, that-the present clergy of the Christian Church are worthy exemplars of : .thq beneficent principles they teach; .though wicked and foolish men sneer at their holy ofilce, yet, so long as their ranks are crowded, iis now, with men true to their calling, they will ever command the love and reverence of '" ' ■* Your obliged servant, JUSTITIA.