CORRESPONDENCE.

Lyttelton Times, Volume II, Issue 66, 10 April 1852, Page 5

CORRESPONDENCE.

To the Editor of the Lyttelton Times. Sir, —In answer to your correspondent " Mechanic," I beg to thank him for his complimentary notice, and to assure him, that whether I lead or follow, I shall be ever happy to forward the interests of such an institution as the one I propose. Any letters addressed to me on the subject, and left at Mr. Bishop's Store, Christehurch, shall meet with my earliest possible attention. I remain, Sir, yours respectfully, Chakles J. Rae. Papanni, April 5,1852.

To the Editor of the Lyttelton Times.

Sir, —I thank you for the notice which you have taken of my letter, but you must pardon me for saying that your reply does not affect the justice oi* my remarks. I might perhaps be tempted to enlarge a little farther upon tne same subject, but, to my surprise, after arguing at some length to prove that you have been right and consistent throughout, you conclude by saying that you perfectly coincide with me, who do not think you by any means either the one or the other. The truth seems to be that your notions and mine, of what consistency is, are altogether different; for you say publicly that "votido not profess to reconcile the Canterbury Association and Self Government, and yet advocate both/.' —whereas I call the advocating of two irreconcileable things inconsistency. However, of course I can't go on quarrelling with a man who says he argues with me. It is consolatory at least to find that, according to you, the representative of the Pilgrims here, this minute of the 24th May is " eminently unsatisfactory," and the only excuse for its acceptance by you and your associates is, that they did not attend to what they ought to have attended to. As to the argument you formed on the "expectation of a local legislature," and the presence of Mr. Godley, and that most important circumstance, the establishment of a nominated Managing Committee," I will not do you the injustice to suppose you allow them any weight yourself, —most important circumstance indeed !

What importance is there in the difference between a nominated agent and a nominated committee ? If you were content with the

one, you need not make such a noise about the other. But I cannot leave the subject of your reply without a word upon your statement that the Canterbury Association is without a "parallel." If yon mean it is uuparalled for the excellence of its members, ami its objects, I must say I never heard of one of those societies that was not uuparalled when it first made its appearance in the world: each of them, to believe its nurse, is the finest baby that ever yet was seen. But if you mean it is without a "parallel in not having a pecuniary interest in its work, I would just ask (not to travel further) if yon ever heard of the New Zealand Association or the Otago Association, both of which, I take it, were in this respect cases exactly parallel ? I am amazed that you should deliberately say : li if the Association had a pecuniary interest, of coarse it would not give up its powers, but as it has not. why should it. wish to retain them ?" You surely don't mean to say you cannot conceive any motive for retaining power except a wish to get interest on money involved ? If so, your ignorance of human nature, is even greater than I supposed. I am. Sir, Your very humble servant, A S.UAGKOOS. P.S. Since writing the above I had received your paper of the 27th. It is curious that since I wrote to you pointing out the absurdity of laying any stress upon the " presence of Mr, Godley and the Bishop," you have announced the resignation of both those functionaries. So much for your " guarantee," with all the grand results which were to follow from it. I have a great mind to say something about Mr. Godley's "consistency" in first coining out with all his ultra notions about local government, as the agent of a London Company, and then quarelling with his employers, if report speaks truth, because they pursued the very path in which he started along with them ; but I refrain for the present.

To the Editor of the '■" Lyttelton Times."

Sir,—Your papev of the 24th inst. contains some rather strange insinuations towards Mr. Fox, (making every allowance for irritability arising from disappointment,) it manifests an illiberal spirit to descend to a sort of winks and nods to injure Mr. Godley's successor. If Mr. Fox has really forfeited his independence, and become a leader to a " nominee council," to manage the affairs of the settlement, speak out; but if he has not, your readers will think with me that it is rather premature to call his appointment even by the soft and indefinite term " unfortunate," until more is known upon the subject ; the ex parte statement of a journalist cannot for a moment be considered as conveying the public sentiment in such an important matter; the press, when free from party principle, will express an important opinion respecting public men, but when the press is the organ of a party, and that party but a small portion of a community, its bellowing- serves to put the public on their guard against an intolerant spirit.the reverse of that liberal aud exalted tone assumed by your journal. The grounds'oii which Mr. Godley resigned are v>-eil known, and reflect credit upon his principle; but it seems to have startled his friends to learn that his resignation was accepted ; Mr Godley acted from principle, but some of his subordinates who have shared in power and emolument, seem touched with misgivings ; all minds cannot quietly yield power or interest from principle, yet all the'alarm may be unfounded, Mr. Fox may not feel disposed to disturb them, he may not be furnished with a new chest of tools, yet he may only retain the use of those implements absolutely necessary to carry on and finish the work with".

_ With respect to Mr Godlev, there can scarce De two opinions; he acts from sincerity, and if he fails to give satisfaction, or promote' the interest of the settlement, none will accuse him of so doiiig wilfully. Mr. Fox may not have the personal esteem of the select,few here, nor will he ever be the leader of the High Church party; Mr. Godly is mentally aud morally the proper person to nil that high position, not but Mr. Fox's moral and religions standing in this colony is irreproachable, and his experience as Agent to the New Zealand Company, both of Nelson and Wellington, has fully established .us competence to deal with an able hand in complicated matters affecting the colonies at New Zealand, and its settlers. As a public

man no person is more generally esteemed in the Wellington and Nelson districts than Mr. Fox ; the foremost to oppose despotic power, the strenuous advocate for education, the settler's and poor man's rights; then who will deny his being a fit and proper person to take in hand the stagnant affairs of the Canterbury Association, and quietly entomb the delusive scheme, and then out of its ashes may arise a new system that will give life aud vigour to the now drooping settlement. 1 1 is true Mr. Fox may not be captivated by the high enthusiasm of the Anglican Church, but that in no wise impairs his judgment, and hundreds can bear testimony to the cheerful and willing manner in which he at all times devoted his energies to the interest of the settlers, when agent to the New Zealand Company.

I am, Sir, your obedient servant, Impartial