The Lyttelton Times.

Lyttelton Times, Volume 1, Issue 3, 25 January 1851, Page 5

The Lyttelton Times.

SATURDAY, January 25, 1851

The Proceedings of the " Society of landpurchasers," of which we this day publish a Report, call for some notice at our hands.

Inquiries will naturally be made by the public voice, not only in this place, but elsewhere, as to the nature of the Society which claims such a prominent position in the economy of our settlement. Men will ask, as indeed they have already asked, how it has been formed, whom it is to consist of, and what it is to do. To such questions, the publication of the rules proposed by the Council on Tuesday last, provides, in some degree, an answer. Those rules set forth in a very explicit manner, the constitution of the Society; and, in a less explicit manner, its objects; but they necessarily leave untouched an important question with respect to its origin, to which, involving, as it does, a consideraton of what may be considered the leading idea of its founders, we beg to call the attention of our readers.

On the one hand, it was felt by the Canterbury Association, that the discharge of their duties towards the colonists whose funds they undertook to administer, would be incalculably facilitated by the establishment of a regular organization among the contributors to that fund, and, on the other hand, the purchasers themselves felt the desirableness of associating or clubbing together, with a view not merely to their connexion with the Canterbury Association, and to the administration of their land.funds, but also to the promotion generally of those objects, which, as Canterbury colonists, they might be assumed to have at heart. There were thus two ideas or principles involved in the formation of the Society; that one, for making contribution to, and control over, a fund, as nearly as possible, correlative—the other, that of association founded on a general similarity of views, wishes, and habits, and calculated to promote certain special objects. It is evident, therefore, that the primary, if not the sole, business of the Society of Land-purchasers, as such, is to assist in managing the funds which have been contributed by themselves, and in effecting the objects for which those funds were contributed. A payment of 31. per acre for wild land, is not a merely commercial transaction; a man who cared about nothing but his moneys worth, would probably have looked elsewhere; such a payment must be considered in a great measure as a subscription; and the fact of subscribing is an evidence and test of certain principles and opinions held in common by the subscribers. This community of views is the basis of the Society, and accordingly, the Council propose, that it consist exclusively of original land-purchasers.

We understand, however, that it has been suggested by some members of the Society that its basis should be enlarged, and that it should be made the nucleus of a comprehensive political organization, directed to all the objects with which the local Government will eventually be concei*ned. We confess that we should consider such a course eminently injudicious. No good could possibly arise from attempting to employ a machinery adapted for one purpose, to one utterly alien from it. In the first place, if the Society of land-purchasers determine to constitute themselves, (or rather upon altering their constitution as to become.) the organ of the political sentiments of the settlement, they must begin by fixing a franchise. They must say whether a freehold, or a leasehold tenure, and of what value, —whether the occupation of a house, or the payment of taxes, —whether residence, and of what length,—or whether the mere fact of being an adult male, —shall constitute the qualification for exercising whatever political influence their society can achieve;

and this we hold to be a task for which they are utterly incompetent. The circumstance of their having bought land in New Zealand gives them no authority or right to exclude, or attempt to exclude, any classes or individuals in that colony from exercising political power; it gives them a right and authority to control the management of their own land-fund, and nothing more. We are quite aware that the same, objection lies against a similar assumption on the part of a public Meeting, or of any other self-constituted body of persons in the colony ; but we are not afraid to follow out our principle to all its consequences. We say that it is an absurdity for any class in a subordinate community-to fix a franchise ; by fixing it they beg the question, and assume that they themselves have got it to fix. -i-We are somewhat amused therefore at the gravity with which public meetings at Wellington aud Nelson, have declared by " great majorities," for universal suffrage ; in other words with which universal suffiage has declared for itself. Of course it has; but those who object to universal suffrage are not likely to consider its claims as very much strengthened by that declaration. The fact is, that the only point connected with local self-government, which it is plainly the business of the Imperial power to decide, is the franchise ; in other words, the authority from whence the right of self-government is derived, must also necessarily decide who are to be the depositaries of that right. We object therefore, in toto, to any self-consti-tuted organization for general, not special objects; to any organization which professes to represent the whole community, and to exercise the functions of its political administration ; in short, to a Provisional Government. We protest, on principle, against turning the Society of Land-Purchasers into a Provisional Government.

Again, we cannot understand how the Canterbury Association could recognise a-re-sponsibility to any such comprehensive organization as we have been supposing. It knows its land-purchasers, and is known by them ; has received their money, and is responsible to them for its expenditure; sympathizes in their aims and ends, and is ready to assist in their promotion. But it by no means follows that the Canterbury Associaation would enter into relations with any corporate body which the land-purchasers might choose to construct, that is, with people who have no claim'upon it whatsoever, and who may conceivably not care two straws about the advancement of its principles and objects. It is possible that such a body and the Canterbury Association might agree very well, and co-operate very effectively; but certainly their relation would be of a totally different kind from that which now subsists between the Association and the Purchasers. The machinery of the Canterbury Association is confessedly of an anomalous, temporary, and '' make-shift" character ; under a proper system of colonization and Colonial Government, it could have no vocation, indeed, no existence; and as soon as ever it shall see the objects of its incorporation securely provided for, its duty will be to dissolve itself. But we at least could see no tendency towards such a consummation in the concession of such a control over its operations to a self-constituted and heterogenous body,as it has conceded to its original land-purchasers. We had intended to touch to-day upon the great political question which the Draft Bill which we publish naturally suggests, and to connect a consideration of it with that of the functions and prospects of the Canterbury Association, and the Society of LandPurchasers. But want of space compels us to defer any further discussion of these topics to a future day.

On account of the press of other matter, our " Journal of the Week" is postponed.