CORRESPONDENCE.

Lyttelton Times, Volume I, Issue 16, 26 April 1851, Page 4

CORRESPONDENCE.

To the Editor of the Lyttelton Times. Sir, Though entirely disagreeing with you in the sentiments expressed in the article in your paper of the 12th inst., on the nominee system, I had intended to pass the matter over in silence, but, having since the appearance of that article been invited to take part in the deliberations of, the Legislative Council for New Zealand, now about to assemble, and having declined to attend, I feel that silence on my part, under the circumstances, would necessarily imply my acquiescence in your views, and it is only due to myself, and to the opinions I hold, to give an explanation of the reasons which have induced me to refuse attending.

My only reason is, that a lengthened absence fromhomejust at present, would be'attended with great personal inconvenience to myself, without a corresponding benefit to the public. Had this not been the case, I should undoubtedly have complied with his Excellency's wishes in this respect. I may as well, before going furtlier, state that I entirely agree with you in your general views as to the desirableness of acquiring for this colony a greater degree of self-government than we at present enjoy, and I shall be always happy to act with you in any legitimate endeavour to promote tliis object, but I differ with you entirely as to what is, and what is not a legitimate method of bringing about this our common end. In the first place, it is not clear to me that my attendance at this council would necessarily infer my approval of the nominee system, it would be nothing more than a recognition on my part, that the present government is a legally-constituted government' and that it is so, you yourself will scarcely deny. In the second place, I must protest against your assertion that your view of the matter is the view taken by every man of station, independence, wealth, and integrity, in New Zeaand," as I am convinced that very many to whom this character would apply, are directly opposed to both of us on this point. I remain, Sir, Your obedient Servant, H. I. Tancrbd. Mr. Editor, Owing to a somewhat lengthy absence from Port Lyttelton, I have only to-day, for the first time, been able to peruse your leading article of the 12th, upon which I take the liberty of volunteering a single remavk which, I trust, will be of service to the general interest of this colony, without seriously offending your editorial self-respect. Whatever, sir,may be the general feeling among us respecting the constitution lately proclaimed in New Zealand, it is too much to have it insinuated that by attending the legal summons of the representative of her Majesty, the person so attending will forfeit any claim to integrity. I feel myself sanctioned in protesting on the part of every gentleman in this colony, against this assumption to dictate " our duty" to us with so high a hand ; and to lay down the law under such terrible pains and penalties. It is easy to indulge in a sneer at gainst the nominee system —but not so easy to transform your readers into creatures who will consent to become your own nominees—or those of the party from whose counsels the article in question emanates. That you would allow us to think and act with at least that degree of freedom to which we have been accustomed in " the old country"—is the humble supplication of one who has no furtlier interest in the matter than what results from his attachment to the common weal of Canterbury, our obedient Servant, T, (JUOLMONDELEY.