THE Lyttelton TIMES. October 2, 1852.

Lyttelton Times, Volume II, Issue 91, 2 October 1852, Page 7

THE Lyttelton TIMES. October 2, 1852.

The expression in our article last week, which has called forth the following letter, is somewhat misunderstood. What we meant was that the Association had promised to transfer their powers of administration to the Local Government as soon as established. The Minute of the 24th May did not contemplate the resignation of the Charter itself—and, unless the Charter were resigned, the Association could not divest itself of the responsibility of seeing that the money received as the price of land was expended in the manner pointed out by the Charter. That, the Association must remain responsible for, until their charter is given up. But we have always understood the minute of the 24th May to mean that the expenditure of the funds, within the limits required by the Charter, was to be left to the Local Government when formed : the words are, "Subject to this provision the whole detail of such application will remain in the hands of the colonists." Our expression was then strictly speaking correct. The Association are about to keep the guarantee they then gave ; whether they are going to do more remains to be seen. The Clause in the Bill does not compel them to do anything ; it only empowers them to resign their func tions, powers, and authorities, and it remains to be seen to what extent they will act upon the authority given.

To the Editor of the Lytlelton Times. Sir, —I wish (with due deference) to correct an error in which you appear to me to have fallen. In your last paper you say "The Canterbury Association has determined to fulfil the guarantee given by the minute of the 24th May, in which they undertook to hand over their powers to a Local Government in the Settlement, as soon as such should be constituted." I have looked carefully through the minute, and I find no such guarantee. On the contrary, the Association emphatically lays down and explains in it the " permanent relations which should exist between itself and the Colonists" after local self-Government shall have been established ;it proposes to continue as " a body selling- land," and as " responsible for the due application of the price ; a responsibility of which it cannot divest itself;" it contemplates " miscellaneous expenses at home, to be of course at the discretion of the Committee;" it considers that " the question of immigration should not properly be withdrawn from the immediate cognizance of the Committee ;" as regards the appropriation of the Ecclesiastical fluids, it ''reserves the liberty of judging whether each payment called for is a bond, fide Church of England purpose;" and it contemplates " communicating with its own Agent in the Colony" upon this point". In short, tlie Association evidently intended at that tirne'to continue for an indefinite period in existence and. in active operation; managing the waste.

lands, holding the fee simple of the public reserves, receiving and expending the territorial revenue. It intended, no doubt, to concede to the colonists a considerable indirect influence over the expenditure, but it evidently contemplated retaining in itr. own hands a complete discretion to revoke all concessions at pleasure, and a paramount jurisdiction over the fund in the last resort. On the other hand the 76th clause of Sir John Pakington's Bill provides that the Association shall be empowered to transfer all the functions, powers, and authorities now vested in the Association" to the Provincial Council of Canterbury ; and we are informed that the Association proposes to act upon that clause forthwith. This is a perfectly different arrangement from that contemplated in the minute of the 24th May. I need hardly add, that in my opiiiion, it is an infinitely preferable one. I am. Sir, Your very obedient servant, An Official.