CORRESPONDENCE.

Lyttelton Times, Volume II, Issue 100, 4 December 1852, Page 8

CORRESPONDENCE.

To the Editor of the Lyttelton Times,

Sir, —If, as 3§. assumes, I have recently contributed an undue share of matter to your columns, I beg earnestly to apologise to yourself and to your readers for having done so. But I trust that both you and they .will pardon me, for intruding upon you as brief a reply as pos • sible to ©.'s last letter.

I much .regret that he should have forced me into wearying the public with an argument as to the views of my father, or of myself, on a particular subject, instead of discussing the subject itself on its own merits, without heed of whatever my father, or my father's son, may happen to think about it. But, as the subject itself is one of great interest to this colony, and as it has been written upon at considerable length, on many occasions, and iiv a very decided manner, by Mr. Edward Gibbon Wakefield, 1 trust I may be allowed to vindicate his literary fame, and the consistency of his views on a particular subject of political economy, from the utter misrepresentation which they might otherwise undergo, if the public were to rely on the statements which I§. has made, in singular ignorance of the questions on which he writes.

I at once pass by the contemptuous sneers, and disparaging expressions, with regard to my father and myself, which 3§. has published under cover of his literary incognito. I will only say, that I fully believe he would have been ashamed to write in so flippant and superficial a tone and spirit under his own name. And I will proceed to the actual subject-matter in dispute between us.

The substance of %'s accusations against my father and myself is—that the arguments* which I used for a long tenure and nominal rent of pasturage would apply equally well against free grants of freehold; that my father's views, and those which I have just put forward, are entirely at variance ; that I have supported my own statement to the contrary by picked passages of my father's writings, which the context would contradict; that my father's system errs greatly on the side of giving too little encouragement to stock-owners; that I have only learned to repeat my father's phrases without really adopting his opinions,—and, by implication, that my father uses phrases in direct opposition to his opinions; that my father approved, adopted, and zealously defended the original Pasturage Regulations of the Canterbury Association ; and that the gentlemen now in the settlement who were engaged in the early part of the Association's proceedings testify to that fact, and regard as out of question the idea that any regulation on such a subject, which, he disapproved of, should have been retained by the Association.

I presume that 3|. means to say that my arguments would apply equally well for, instead of against, free grants of freehold. I should be sorry to take advantage of what appears a mere technical, or rather blunder-headed error. Of course he means, that my arguments in support of the freest possible leasehold tenure of laud for pasturage purposes, would apply equally well for the freest possible freehold grant for other purposes. This only proves to me that %. has not profited by my recommendation, and has not condescended "to read that chapter of my father's book which I pointed out to him. It is therein explained, that labourers do not save enough capital to engage in pastoral enterprise, although they may easily save enough to purchase a few acres of freehold land, if the price be low, and thus become competitors in the labour-market witlftheir former employers. It is shewn that, while the rent of land for pasturage, whether high or low, does not change any labourers into employers, yet the vigorous pursuit of pastoral enterprise in any country creates the greater necessity for a high price on freehold land, in order that there may be the larger and more reliable supply of the skilled labour absolutely required for the profitable action of sheepfarming. With this view I thoroughly agree.

Ever since I left school, about sixteen years ago, I have been a humble pupil of my father in political economy, and especially in those branches of it which bear on colonization and Colonial Government. Whether as his amanu r ensis, his correspondent, or his listener, I have learned to identify myself with his opinions on those subjects; and to respect the result in his mind of more than twenty years' study of them, combined with his thorough knowledge of the

literature connected with them, and his personal intimacy with the leading practical men from every British colony who have during that time visited England. I am proud to say that I have never yet seen reason to doubt one of the principles, or to differ from one of the opinions, which he has thereupon advanced. As it would be absurd to claim a newspaper's columns for so personal a controversy, I can only say to 3|. that I am prepared to support this assertion by fair and good-tempered argument, either vivd voce, if 3J|. will deign to appear in person, or by written correspondence, whether he will or not. The public will easily judge for themselves, whether an anonymous writer, or I, know better as to the consonance, or variance, of ray father's opinions and my own, on any subject whatsoever.

In quoting from my father's book, I especially stated that the context only strengthened the argument, 33|. implies that it contradicts it. lean only repeat that he speaks with superficial flippancy of my father's opinions , and writings. lam quite sure that he has not read them himself; and I cannot help believing that he has never conversed with my father on the subject. My simple reason for quoting only a few sentences was, that the whole of my father's writings on the subject would more than fill a copy of your paper. But I conscientiously assert, that all his writings and opinions on the subject are in the very strongest degree favorable, in the abstract, to the utmost encouragement of pastoral enterprise, by means of the longest possible tenure, the lowest possible rent, and the utmost possible security for improvements by means of a pre-emptive right over the whole run guaranteed to the pastoral tenant. I confidently defy I§, or any one else, to adduce any opinion to the contrary, ever put forth by my father.

I have not yet learned to repeat phrases* without both knowing what they mean, and also holding fast the opinion implied in their repetition. Nor are the published phrases of my father on this subject so indistinct or vague, that they could be repeated by any honest man in terms of approbation, without both understanding and adopting them.

_■■ If. has made a very imperfect research, and jumped very rapidly at conclusions, with regard to the share of my father in the original Pasturage Regulations of the Canterbury Association. I was, myself, humbly engaged in the early part of the Association's proceedings : and I. feel certain that Mr. Godley, if asked, will testify to the fact that my father was at that time generally opposed to any restriction on the tenure of land for pastoral purposes ; because I know, that Mr. Godley read and admired a Pamphlet strongly advocating that view, just then published by Mr. Felix Wakefield, but well known to have been written by him and my father in conjunction. I can procure the loan of a copy for %, if he chooses to read it. It is called " A Report on Colonial Surveying, with a view to the disposal of ivaste lands'' But I have been shewn a private letter from my father, expressing his approval of these Pasturage Regulations, as soon as the preemptive right had been secured to the landpurchasers ; a right which some members of the Association strove earnestly to deny altogether. This approval, however, appears clearly to have been given in consideration of the peculiar cir.cumstances under which the Canterbury Settlement was founded, and because he imagined that those regulations would prove attractive to a particular class of capitalists : persons, we may suppose, accustomed to that kind of farming in England which combines the tillage of arable with the use of adjacent pastoral land. I cannot find, however, that he has in any case expressed any doubt as to the soundness of his general views on the question, as published in more than one form.

I will not say that I " have done" with lj. I regret that he should have diverted this controversy into a question as to individuals' opinions, instead of one as to the best measures for the public good. But so long as you may choose to consider 3§'s arguments, or mine, of sufficient public interest, and so long as he may maintain that courtesy of tone which is more especially required of the writer who shields himself under a nom-de-guerre, I shall be ready and happy to answer him in the same tone.

I am, Sir, Your very obedient servant, E. JjERNINGHAM WAKEFIELD. Christchurch, Nov. 27,1852. ;

. To the Editor of the Lyttelton Times. Sir, —Mr. Jollie might have ascertained by referring to the Blue Books which were in my hands (and very much at his disposal,) the grounds of that assertion of mine which he questions in his letter published by you last Saturday. I asserted that Sir George Grey, having in view the creation of four provinces, recommended the reservation of £10,000 in each province as a civil list. The proof of this is to be found in the Despatch, dated November 29th, 1848, from Sir George Grey to Earl Grey, and in the Ordinance which it covers. Sir George Grey says in the course of an explanatory introduction to the Ordinance:—"At the present moment, New Zealand is only divided into two provinces, but recent despatches lead me to believe that it will shortly be divided into three if not four provinces ;" arid again, "it appears probable to me that the founders of the Scotch settlement, and the Canterbury settlement, may wish to avail themselves of the provisions of the Ordinance inclosed in this despatch," &c. &c. Sir George therefore contemplated the application of " the inclosed Ordinance," to Auckland, Wellington, Canterbury, and Otago. Now let us see what the "inclosed Ordinance" says. It is enacted in clause 7, that " for each of the provinces into which New Zealand now is, or may hereafter be divided, there shall be a Legislative Council, &c, &c.;" and in clause 23, that " there shall be appropriated out of the revenues of each of the said provinces as aforesaid by way of civil list, the sum of £6000 by the year." Finally, Sir George observes in reference to the latter clause, while offering suggestions for a permanent constitution, (and at a time, be it remembered, when he contemplated a further and immediate sub-division.) " I think it might be more prudent to reserve for the next few years a civil list of £10,000 per annum in each province." Mr. Jollie will see that the practical effect of the provision in the Ordinance, altered in accordance with Sir George Grey's suggestion last quoted, would have been to reserve civil lists, amounting to £10,000 a year each, in an indefinite number of provinces ; —amounting, altogether, to £40,000 a year if (as he then seems to have anticipated) the Colony had been divided into four provinces ; to £60,000 a year, if it had been divided (as it now is,) into six provinces. Such, at least, is the natural and obvious inference from the words I have quoted. I am, Sir, your obedient servant, John Robert Godley.