HORTICULTURAL EXHIBITION, DEC. 16, 1853.

List of Prizes aioarded hy the Judges : FLOWERS. Best collection of Roses, Ist prize (10s.), Dr. Donald. 2nd, (55.), Mr. Watts Russell. Geraniums. Ist, (10s.), Mr. Watts Russell. Piccotees. Ist, (55.) Dr. Donald : 2nd, (35.) Mr. Watts Russell. Sweet Williams, Ist, (55.), Dr. Barker ; 2nd, (35.), Mr. Bray. Flowering Bulbs. Ist, (10s.), Mr. Wilson.

Collection of Cut Flowers. Ist. (10s.), Dr. Barker; 2nd., (65.), Mr. W. G. Brittan ; 3rd (45.), Dr. Donald ; 4th, (25.), Mr. Watts Rus sell; stb, (Is.), Rev. W. Willock. EXTRA PRJZKS. Floral Device, (55.), Mr. Watts Russell. Cereus Speciocissimus (55.), Dr. Donald. Scarlet Verbenas (55.), Mr. Cookson. Sweet William, double white, (35.), Mr. Watts Russell. Collection of Antevrhimums, (35.), Mr. Bray. Musk Plant, (35.), Miss Bishop. < VEGETABLES. Peas, Ist, (55.), Mr. Wilson; 2nd, (35.) Cap. Simeon; 3rd, (25.), Mr. Wilson. Broad Beans. Ist, (55.), Captain Simeon. Potatoes (new) Ist, (55.), Rev. W. Willotik ; 2nd, (35.), Cap. Simeon; 3rd., (25.), Sir T. Tancred. Potatoes (old), Ist, (75.), Mr. Wilson. Carrots. Ist, (55.), Rev. W. Willock ; 2nd, '(35.), do.; 3rd, (25,), Mr. W. G. Brittan. Turnips. Ist, (55.) 5 Mr. Wilson ; 2nd, (35.), Mr. Dunnage; 3rd, (25.), Mr. Wilson. Cauliflowers. 2nd, (35.), Mr. Watts Russell. Onions. Ist, (55.), Rev. W. Willock; 2nd, (35.), Mr. Wilson. Lettuces. 2nd, (25.) 3 Cap. Simeon. Bunch of Pot-herbs. 2nd, (35.), Mr. Wilson. . Native Grasses. Ist, (55.), Mr. Wilson. FRUITS. Strawberries. Ist, (55.), Mr. Bray; 2nd, (35.), Mr. Bowron ; 3rd, (25.), Rev. W. Willock.—Mr. Wilson's were highly commended, and Mr. Stout's would have received a piize had they not been injured by the carriage from Lyttelton. Raspberries. 2nd, (35.), Dr. Donald. Gooseberries. Ist, (55.), Dr. Barker; 2nd, (35.), Mr. Wormald ; 3rd, (25.), Mr. W. G. Brittan. Currants. Ist, (55.), Dr. Donald. Cucumbers. Ist, (75.), Mr, Watts Russell.

To the Editor of the Lyltelton Times. Dunedin, December, 1853. Sir, —An attempt is shortly to be made by those who at present form the majority in the Provincial Council of Otago, to employ their new powers for the purpose of class legislation. Five of the nine members of the Provincial Council have publicly declared that they will not consent either to the division amongst the schools of diffe.rent sects of the money voted for educational purposes, or to the establishment of common schools in which all sects should meet on terms of perfect equality ; but that they shall insist, that the Assembly's Shorter Catechism shall be the standard of religious instruction in the schools assisted by the Council. One of the five gentlemen, MrjMacandrew, who is also a member of the House of Representatives, declared that he should advocate the grant by the General Assembly of certain funds for education, and that, to. quote his own words, " the whole apportioning of the money, the management of the schools, and the nature of the education, should be under the absolute control of the various Provincial Councils. In this Province I should consider it a sine qua non that the Bible and|the 'Assembly's Shorter Catechism' should be taught in the schools." Now, Sir, when it is borhe in mind that the Province of Otago extends from the Waitaki northward, to the Bluff southward, and that the Avhole, with the exception of small native reserves, has now been purchased from the Maories, such a proposition is an attempt, not only to perpetuate the class character of the Settlement in the original Otago Block, contrary to the wishes of a large minority of the settlers, but also to extend that class character over a tract of country, of which that block forms a very small portion. To escape such injustice, the members of the Church of England, and of other aggrieved''sects, must appeal from a hostile Council to the public opinion of the other Provinces of JSew Zealand, and to the protection of the General Assembly. I am, Sir, yours, &c, J. A. FEXTO3f,

To the Editor of the Lyttelton Times. Sir, —No doubt you will have, if you have not already had, the thanks of His Honor and the members of the Provincial Council for your flattering advocacy of their doings in their first session. There can be no doubt upon the astuteness of the Superintendent, and the ability of the members generally, and they have done one thing as well as any men could have done it —that is, spent all the money that was available, and given it principally to members of the Government. A " Tiller of the Soil" has spoken the opinion of the generality of the colonists, and it would have been but what the Council ought to have done to have passed the Trespass Act. The one brought forward by Mr. Tancred would have answered the purpose well; it appeared a just and equitable measure. It is very obvious how very short the memory of members is—they ought not to be trusted longer than three years. Five years is too long; they must often be reminded of their hustings speeches. How is it that those who have taken office have not been sent back to their constituency? Surely it was not blarney—the check upou patronage. "We must not expect too much. But it is no matter, —Celt or Saxon—Dane or Norman, —all equally require something to keep them right, and that something is in Parliament opposition; and since three of our members have become as one, it is quite necessary that there should be ah increase of members in the Provincial Council. Your obedient Servant, Another Tiller op the Soil. December 20,1853. '

To the Editor of the Lyttelton Times. Sib, —I do not wonder at seeing a letter in your last week's columns on the existing Trespass Ordinances ; it only surprises me that a matter of such importance to the public at large should have been so little canvassed there. Land-tilling and stock-farming being the occupations of the Settlement, on which it entirely depends for its life and" progress, it is not too much to say that a maladjustment of the claims of these two strikes at the very vitals of its existence, and demands the immediate interference of the Provincial Government. Here I agree with a " Tiller of the Soil," with his other opinions I am directly at issue. Granting, but not admitting the fact upon which he founds his letter, viz.,—" that our progress in agriculture is not so great as might have been expected;" Ido not believe that the necessity of fencing has been the cause, though I am prepared to prove that the remedy proposed would have induced a greater evil. He would have the law to shield the crops of a man who does not stir a finger to fence or protect them himself. A most convenient Ordinance no doubt for " A Tiller of the Soil" !! Neither space, Sir, nor time will permit ray answering seriatim the arguments of this gentleman's very one-sided epistle; but I will adduce one of the many evil consequences of such a dangerous proposition and such unequal protection. In spite o/the vast strides'that agriculture has made here, there are still eo'nsiderable tracts of land, within a five mile radius erf Christchurch, quite in their primeval condition, though chosen in rural sections. A well-wisher to the colony would of course like to see these occuprecr by their respective proprietors ; still these tracts are not useless, as they afford natural pasturage to horses, cows, and bullocks, belonging to

persons residing in Christchurch or on adjoining sections. The value of such a run for the few head of live stock belonging to various owners in or near the town cannot be overrated. Now supposing a law was passed equivalent to the one proposed by " A Tiller of the Soil," a man might take a section on lease, at almost nominal rates, in the middle of one of these tracts, and put in some thirty acres of crop. The live stock in the neighbourhood would sooner or later walk on to it, and some unfortunate owner be mulcted in one night for more . than his stock had brought him in during the previous six months, or, if the crop were of such a nature, his animals might be blown and die before his eyes. What is the consequence ? Why stock must be withdrawn from the neighbourhood of Christchurch, not excepting even the Town Reserve : these invaluable pasturages must lie totally waste and useless, and the man with 30 acres would shut out 3000 from beneficial occupation: Is this justice ? Would it be for the best interests of the colony that every man with two cows, hoi-ses, or bullocks, should be compelled either to part with them, or else to fence them in, or stall feed them ? Yet that he would be so compelled is but an obvious corollary from the above case. Space only is needed to show the utter absurdity of the idea that such a law would advance our colonial prosperity. On the contrary, I believe that it would be better if the fencing of tilled land were made not only negatively, but positively, compulsory. Such r.n enactment would protect the public, benefit the Settlement, and merely compel the land owner to add £5 per acre to the value of his land by spending £2 per acre more on it. There are several persons near Christchurch who have for some time past cropped unfenced land ; the consequence is, that tame cattle getting on to it, acquire a strong predilection for young corn, and become ever afterwards determined fence breakers. Here the sequence is as bad as in the former case. The cattle owner finds that his animals previously harmless to every one, now cost five times their value in fence breaking, and the industrious and enterprising man, who really benefits the colony by fencing his crops, suffers either grievous loss or the perpetual harassment of a doubt' ful security. I fear, Sir, that the limits you will be able to afford me in your valuable Journal are already transgressed, and therefore I will conclude without alluding to the many other arguments which might follow on the same side. We do want an equitable and distinct trespass law. Let the Government carry out their intentions as briefly declared already in the Provincial Council, and the public, as far as it can at present judge, will get such a law; but a widely different measure it luckily is from the short-sighted scheme proposed by " A Tiller of the Soil." I am, Sir, Your obedient servant, A Land and Cattle Owner. The Plains, Dec. 21, 1803.

To the Editor of the Lyttelton Times. Sir, —I observe in your remarks upon the Hurdle Race which took place £at Christchurch on the 16th inst., you state that had Necromancer not refused the last hurdle, it is probable he would have won the race. Such an hypothesis I consider is equally as ungenerous as it is unjust, and far from being too unimportant to pass unnoticed. If you had stated that had the Maid of the Mountain not refused the first

hurdle, in all probability Necromancer would not have shewn himself in the race, I should have considered your supposition would have been much more reasonable* but allow me to inform j^ou that Pegasian suppositions are only legitimate previous to a race. As the rider of the " Maid of the Mountain," I beg- to state that 1 could have been over the last flight of hurdles easily before Mr. Leach, as I was pulling the mare hard at the time ; but as I found the mare was faster than the horse, I did not let her go, as I was anxious to shew the public as much sport as possible. This explanation is only due to the reputation of Mr. Laurie's " Maid," and is made irrespective of any expression of opinion upon the general capabilities of " Necromancer." I am, Sir, Your obedient Servant, J. D. Britiin-.

To the Editor of the Lyttelton Times. Sin, —It " turns up" by Custos's reply, (I had well-nigh written " Customs") that " Spades are Trumps," and that a man with his hand full of them can be done by a " trick." Custos proves himself utterly ignorant of spade husbandry (" agriculturally interpreted"), though not of "shuffling." I beg to remain, Sir, Yours faithfully, Thos. Hichens. The Betreat, Dec. 21st, 185 3,