Untitled

Lyttelton Times, Volume III, Issue 117, 2 April 1853, Page 9

To the Editor of the Lyttelton Times,

\ Sir, —It was with feelings of deep indigKj&f©n I perused in your paper the record Encoue last nefarious act of" Captain Grey" a%Wsur departed friend calls him. Sir, it is necessary to speak plainly. Her Majesty's representative has robbed—yes, that is the word—robbed the political till of all its available capital—and abstracting the gold, has left but the dirty coppers for the rightful owners to squabble over.

Reflect for a moment on the loss the literary world will have to sustain. How many embryo Chathams must now lie mute and inglorious—how many speeches, redolent of blarney, must how remain for ever unspoken. To think that our young legislators, instead of revelling in the delights of pulling down the old body politic and reconstructing it at their leisure—-will now be confined to the hum drum toil of working a cut arid dried constitution with tools made''ready to their hands! The contemplation is melancholy indeed.

It is possible, however, Mr. Editor, that if \ye look at the question in another light, the prospect may not be so dismal as it appears at first sight. Suppose, instead of talking of "the last act of an expiring despotism," we call it the last gift of a paternal government.

It is but recently we met to thank our old father John Bull for the gift of our new constitution. He knew that young Hopeful would require a new house to live in, but, far from trusting his inexperience with its construction, built it himself, leaving the youngster to alter it afterwards if he found it necessary. Now this act I look upon as part of the new furniture of our establishment, and though possibly some articles may be old-fashioned, yet the least we can do is to be thankful for the kind intention which made it.

To be serious—-are we wise in condemning Sir G. Grey's act, simply because the subject of it was sure.to have been amongst the earliest discussed by the House of Representatives ?

I take it for granted that the Wakefield isystem will be abandoned. Even the friends of Mr. Wakefield in this colony admit that the principle of high,priced land, though a good and sound one (in theory, I presume,) will not work here, and I believe this opinion is pretty generally held in other parts of New Zealand.

This principle, however, is the groundwork of our present system of colonization —remove it, and the whole structure falls to the ground.

Sir G. Grey has, I think, acted wisely in providing that the first act of our Assembly should not be that of demolition. In the first place, the work of destruction and reconstruction (in the hands of an assembly new in office and unaccustomed to the work of legislation) would be a work of time, and every hour of uncertainty and delay would greatly retard the progress of the colony in... this most critical period of its existence..

2ndly. The bump of destructiveness is always largely developed on the crania of young legislators, and as the desire of destruction increases with its gratification, I think it was the act of a wise statesman to remove the temptation as far as possible from us.

And I do not see that we are in any way prejudiced by it. Sir G. Grey's act is not unalterable, and be its merits or demerits what they may, it is at least not open to the objection brought against home legislation, it is the work of a man who, at all events, knows what he is talking about, and the general success which has attended his government under circumstances of no common difficulty should secure for his opinions a respectful attention. ....

The Colonists of Otago and Canterbury are peculiarly fortunate, inasmuch as during the time that must elapse ere the measure can be introduced amongst them, they will be able to see how its works in the other settlements of New Zealand, and suggest any modifications they may think it requires to suit their peculiar circumstances. I do not pretend to discuss the merits of the Act, there will be plenty of time to do that. But there is one question I have heard mooted that immediately concerns us. I mean, whether in case the price of land in Canterbury be lowered from £3 per acre, the original land-purchasers will have a right to compensation from government.

Now as far as the abstract. question of compensation goes, I, as a land-purchaser, shall be . very happy to have it— -when I get it. But if you were to ask me on what grounds I claim it, I should be at. a loss to state them. The owners of the New Zealand Company's scrip received it, I believe, because they had been kept out of possession of their lands a number of years. This we certainly were not, and as to the general complaint that we have been hoaxed by the Association, and that our Canaan does not turn out to be all it appeared to us on the other side of the water—that, I fear, is too common a case with emigrants to induce the government to apply balm to our wounded feelings in the shape of supplementary land-orders. However, should any brother pilgrim be able to discover good and sufficient reasons for our claim, I shall be only too happy to join in his petition. In grasping at the shadow may we not lose the substance—and would it not be better for us under the present circumstances, that, relinquishing all claim to compensation ourselves, we should only demand that the 27 th clause of the Act should be altered so as to include the whole of the Canterbury block in its restrictions—so that the owners of scrip should not be able to take possession of land which has received its value solely by the expenditure of our money.

I would conclude this long-winded epistle by asking one question; what is.the meaning of the extraordinary paragraph in your last, announcing .the probability of the debts of Certain Members of the Committee of Management being assumed by the Government in case the, Provincial Council refuse them? It cannot surely mean a threat— that if the Provincial Council refuse to take them, they will be forced upon us whether we will or no. If such be its meaning, it is as futile as indecent. I trust I am mistaken, but if so, my mistake is shared by many of your readers. I am, Sir, your's &c, Syphax. Christchnrch, March 29, 1853.