New Zealand Spectator, AND COOK’S STRAIT GUARDIAN. Saturday, February 28, 1852.

New Zealand Spectator and Cook's Strait Guardian, Volume VIII, Issue 686, 28 February 1852, Page 2

New Zealand Spectator, AND COOK’S STRAIT GUARDIAN. Saturday, February 28, 1852.

In our last number we published from the Australian and New Zealand Gazette an article on the Canterbury lands in which the writer, who appear? to be well versed in his subject, urges the Association unless they are prepared to cease all further operations to reduce the price of their lands from £3 to 30s. an acre, compensating those who have purchased land at the higher price, as it is clearly impossible to obtain so high a price for land at Canterbury when it can be obtained in any of the older settlements for one-third that sum, or even less. He strongly urges the adoption of some uniform system in the disposal of the waste lands, and represents in forcible terms the evils arising from the different and conflicting systems in the disposal of land in the different settlements, and describes them as being sufficient to drive an intending settler to some other colony where such conflicting systems and interests do not exist. In our present number will be found a letter to Mr. Godley from Mr. Cholmondeley, originally published at Lyttelton as a pamphlet, which suggests some other points connected with the Canterbury scheme as subjects for consideration. The writer, who handles his subject in a masterly manner, touches in .a sarcastic vein upon several topics which are evidently tender places. After describing in a few rapid sentences the process of the formation of the settlement, when noblemen were canvassed, land orders sold, ships chartered, promises and engagements made, and the best platform orator in England retained under the title of Bishop Designate, he reminds Mr. Godley of his neglectofhis dutyin playing the part of demagogue at Wellington, instead of bemgatLyttelton superintending the arrangements for the reception of the Colonists.—“ You, My dear Sir, were heard of first at Wellington, and then at Lyttelton,” He then points out Mr. Godley’s inconsistency in leading the self government party, and yet acting as the representative of an Association that wishes to impose its nominees on the settlement in the shape of a managing Committe, and in a little history” with great humour and ability states the case as it stands between the philanthropist and his too confiding neighbour. Mr. Cholmondeley then putsafew questions to Mr. Godley as Agent, as to the pasturage regulations, the publication of the accounts of the Association, and the expenditure of the fund for ecclesiastical purposes, which are more easily asked than answered, and enquires “ are these fair, are the answers forthcoming—is it too much to ask what they are,” and observes “I might here pause for an answer.” Mr. Cholmondeley might easily have multiplied these questions; as a Canterbury colonist he might have asked when such efforts have been made by the Association to maintain so high a price for the land, why have the religious and educational features, which in the extensive system of touting that has been practised in London” were put so prominently forward, so little reality ? Where are the promised churches and schools ? When will the cost of chartering all these vessels be defrayed, and by whom ? Who are the responsible parties in the Association ? The smouldering fires seem on the eve of bursting forth—the dissatisfaction caused by the neglect or non-fulfilment of so many solemn pledges is finding an audible expression, but we fear the able writer

of this brochure will pause a long ti me f an answer, unless Mr. Godley’s Irish b] o ° F getting the better of his him to break the silence he has hith / maintained on these subjects. 0