Untitled

Lyttelton Times, Volume II, Issue 82, 31 July 1852, Page 8

To the Editor of the Lyttelton Times. Sir, —The analogy which your correspondent W. G. would establish between the Government of New Zealand and ' a lar^e mercantile concern' has not been traced out far enough by him. He has thus been led astray in his conclusions. : His comparison fails in this: that whereas a Merchant trades solely on his own account, risks his own capital, is responsible, not—be it

observed—to any clerk, but, to himself alone for blunders and ill success; the Governer, on the contrary, is in a position of trust, and is managing for others. Your correspondent has neglected to ask himself this question : ' the Governor being a " paid manager," who pays him ? In other words, who should he be responsible to for mismanagement? The very title "manager" in itself implies the existence of a superior controlling power. For whose benefit then, is the Governor employed ?' Assuredly not for his own.

The truer analogy is this: the Governor may be considered as paid manager of a large Joint Stock Company in which every settler—every man who conies to try his fortunes in the colony, —is a Shareholder. Now, whether he be employed by private individuals, or by the public through their manager, he is not one whit the less interested in the company's success. As a Shareholder, on whom annual calls are made, —as an integral portion.of the.public —he unquestionably enjoys the right, in common with others, to enquire in what manner his interests are being cared for —to join in discussing and laying down the broad principles on which its operations are to be conducted. With the method of carrying out those principles, and with the details of office, while himself employed upon them he has no right to interfere : if otherwise, there were no manager. Those specially engaged upon the Company's affairs one might infer would be somewhat conversant with, and best (or, at least, well) qualified to give opinions on them. • But your correspondent according to his own shewing, would reject altogether the assistance such men could advantageously afford to the deliberations of Shareholders. He would have this body bind itself by a rule glaringly prejudicial to its own interests ! Mr. Hamilton's position, under Kepresentative Government, would be utterly untenable, and is even now only so from the fact which stands at present thus: the Public, by allowing the rule to obtain that its officers are to take no part in affairs which concern them, deprives them of their right of citizenship—lends itself to perpetuate an injustice, to degrade its own service,—and virtually maintains the superior consideration of ignorance over experience. It establishes a distinct caste, a body of Pariahs, imposing on them disabilities which inevitably must tend to nourish opinions opposed to those of the people. Of the latter part of your correspondent's letter it may be observed : —Principles that will embrace all circumstances and all persons, should be arrived at, apart from the consideration of what any individual private resources may be. These last are ever varying. Are we to institute an Inquisition for ascertaining whether a Public servant is a ' Land Holder,' or not ? Are we to understand then, that possession of any infinitesivnaUy small portion of soil shall alone determine the lawfulness of his speaking on public matters: shall, in fact, confer on ignorance and stupidity privileges denied to education and aptitude?

That to the ownership of Land appertains a deeper and more peculiar interest in a country than to any other species of property, I do especially deny. And more especially I do so in a. colony ; where many occupations are more remunerative than that of an agriculturist. The doctrine is monstrous. Has a Merchant then, no "stake"in this Settlement? Has a flockowner none ? Has the man who gains his bread from day to day by the labor of his hands none? He who hardly earns a scanty subsistence at the drudgery of the desk, has he none r No—Every man in this country is hei'e "prima facie" because he has an interest in it; till the contrary is proved, we are bound to presume that he has. I would rather argue that one who is dependent solely on the livelihood which the due performance of a public duty secures to him, has a far more powerful incitement to exertion for the public good, with which his fortunes are so intimately bound up, than the man ot capital and property who is above necessity. For, times of distress cause to the one actual privation, to the other retrenchment only ot some trifling gratification. The " Stake" an individual has in a country is to be measured not by its nominal, not by its intrinsic value as referred to mere current coin of the realm,—but, by the importance it possesses in his own estimation as a means or keeping body and soul together, of realising aii

honest competency, and, in later life, of placing him beyond want. I am, Sir, Your obedient servant, Pen-nibber.

To the Editor of the Lytielton Times S lE ,_Will you inform us whether there is any " Ordinance" about weights and measures ? The 2 lb. loaf is generally 3 ounces short, buy where you will—and some of our dairy folk imagine pure milk too strong for our constitution : the latter fault may be attributed to the richness of the pasturage adjacent to the town, and I suppose that the first article is never weighed. Do you not think the public could enforce the bread being weighed on delivery ? —or perhaps in your price current you would quote the 2 lb. loaf, minus 3 ounces, 7d. I am, Your's &c, Quid peo Quo.

To the Editor of the Lyttelton Times. Sir—Your report of the proceedings of the Kesident Magistrate's Court, held at Christchurch on the 17th instant, contains a most important decision, which, it is to be feared, has justly given rise to much dissatisfaction; and, if we may judge from the proceedings of the same court on the 10th instant, it will not probably carry much weight—the decision of the Magistrates at one time being reversed at another. What the law on the subject of Trespass may be here, appears at present undefined; but it is to be hoped it will have justice for its foundation, aud that damages will be awarded according to the size of the fence. In England, the law of trespass is certainly explicit enough; it lays down as a rule—"Every man's ground, in the eye of the law, is enclosed either by a visible fence, or imaginary boundary line, and whoever enters upon it without leave of the owner, is a trespasser." And here let me call your attention to a more important clause, as relates to this decision. "But a person is answerable not only for his own trespass, but that of his cattle ; for if by negligent keeping, they stray upon the land of another, and tread down the herbage, or commit other injury, this is a trespass for which the owner must answer in damages." This is certainly plain enough, and founded on strict principles of justice. Now, in Jackson and his neighbours' case, there is a very peculiar feature : a number of cows are turned on about 120 acres of land, bordering on Fendall-town, where Jackson and the other plaintiffs reside; the gardens of these Freeholders are enclosed according to the description given in your report, and there is an effort made on their part to restrain trespass of any kind. But it does not appear that Mr. Worsley has made the slightest attempt to fence, or in any way restrain his cattle from wandering whithersoever they pleased ; in fact, far from restraining, any person would naturally conclude they were driven, from hunger, to trespass, as nearly 100 acres out of 120 have been recently burnt off. Yet on their complaining and demanding damages, all their efforts, and Mr. Worsley's negligence, are overlooked,, and they are bid to enlarge their fences. When we hear of trespass we naturally conclude there is negligence on both sides; and where both are neglectful, it is but fair the one who suffers loss should be compensated in some slight degree—damages of course being awarded in proportion to the care taken to exclude. But to overlook all efforts on one side, and all neglect on the other, is contrary to equity, and drives men to take the law in their own hands, and make those wicked attempts for which we have had one prosecution already. It destroys the security of both parties, and is calculated to cause more ill will amongst different classes than any other circumstance which could happen. I remain, Sir, Your obedient servant, Agricola.