CORRESPONDENCE.

Lyttelton Times, Volume III, Issue 121, 30 April 1853, Page 5

CORRESPONDENCE.

To the Editor of the Lyttelton Times. Sir, —You have published a letter which Mr. Sewell has addressed to me, upon which I shall be obliged if you will insert the following observations. The difference between Mr. Godley and Mr. Sewell, so far as that difference was explained or implied in Mr. SewelFs former letter, was something more than one of *' judgment and opinion ;" it was a question of public character. If Mr. Sewell did not mean a " personal reflection " on Mr. Godley, I think he should have used very different language. The two points which I wish to notice, are —first, the question as to the publication of the accounts; secondly, as to the expenditure of the ecclesiastical fund. With regard to the first, we view the question from such entirely opposite points of view, that I despair of a theoretical, though, I hope not, of a practical, agreement. Mr. Sewell regards these accounts as being within his option to withhold or to publish. . I conceive that he is bound by every equitable and honourable consideration to publish them, and that he cannot withhold them without lasting disgrace to the Canterbury Association. In the first place, the Association have, publicly promised to publish them j in the second place, the funds being in the nature of trust funds, those, for whose benefit they were guaranteed to be expended, have an equitable right to the information sought; and, lastly, the Association, having stood in the position of Government, admistering by far the largest and most important departments of the local Government, ought to have afforded at least as much information as is afforded by the most unpopular of modern Colonial Governments,'by publishing a periodical account of Ithe income and expenditure of the public funds at their disposal. Every line which has fallen from Mr.Sewell's pen is an additional proof o£ the extreme impolicy of such accounts" having been withheld for more''than two years. Transactions, of which jthe public ought to have been officially informed 'through the proper channel, only become known at last by desultory, irregular,' and communications, which bear the appearance of being rather extorted -' as a defence than published as a simple matter of business. I said contradictory, for there appears to be

material discrepancy in the accounts of the j same transactions in Mr. Sewell's letters to Mr. Brittan and to myself. For example, in the former it would appear that the whole of the available income of the Association in. the colony is chargeable with ecclesiastical, and educational expenses; from the latter, that only £600 per annum is available for such purposes ; whilst those private individuals who have advanced money to the Association have a lien on the remainder. This may be quite right, but is it consistent with the statement in Mr. Sewell's former letter, that those funds were available for ecclesiastical and educational purposes in the Settlement ? These discrepancies are perhaps unavoidable in so desultory a mode of affording information, but Mr. Sewell himself could not have fallen into them had. proper accounts been before the public. I am sorry Mr. Seweli should accuse the colonists of ingratitude, in asking how their money has been expended. It is both bad taste and bad policy to speak of " an honest administration and a disinterested generosity, which deserves a better return than it has received," when the public has been denied all information which will enable them to judge whether the administration has been honest and the generosity disinterested. It is a most unfortunate answer, when |we ask for accounts of our money, to tell us that " very many thousand pounds" have I been spent upon us more than we had any right to expect. I may know, but the public do not, the sacrifices which private individuals have made ; but suppose it should happen that those individuals had been plundered ; that extensive peculation in the trust funds had taken place, which occasioned these large advances by private individuals; would such advances constitute a claim for exemption from rendering accounts ? lam not asserting that this has been the case, or that there is the least suspicion of it; the hypothesis is sufficient to expose the absurdity of the position that extravagance of expenditure justifies the concealment of accounts. At the proper time and in the proper place I shall be fully prepared to consider the pecuniary claims which Lord Lyttelton and others have upon this colony. Mr. Sewell is making a great blunder if he imagines that he is the only one in this settlement, who is inclined to consider those claims with justice and even with generosity : and he must forgive me if I assure him that by the tone which he has adopted he is rendering the consideration of those claims additionally difficult to Lord Lyttelton's friends, and most unpalateable to the Colonists generally. Mr. Sewell does not " rightly understand" my view when he states it to be, that private individuals of the A ssociation are bound to furnish funds out of their own pockets* He is perfectly aware that I think nothing of the kind. The most strained interpretation of my language could exti-act no such meaning out of it, for the question at issue was how a specific income in possession should be spent, not how an additional income should be raised. There are some observations in Mr. Sewell's letter respecting the property of the Association, which appear to me quite unintelligible, probably because I am not lawyer enough to understand the peculiar rights which attach to public-private property ; I do not understand how the public rights, which Mr. Sewell recognises, can be preserved, and at the same time the property can "be sold without impropriety and without detriment to the public service." With regard to the expenditure of the Ecclesiastical funds, Mr. Sewell has supplied some new and very valuable information. But I differ with him in thinking

that the transactions to which he refers are simple, and he is certainly mistaken in supposing them to be notorious. The mystery in which they are involved, which appears so strange to Mr. Sewell, is simply a mystery which hangs about all unpublished accounts. I shall not enter into the question, whether the expenditure of the Ecclesiastical funds has been wise or not. I have always abstained from publicly criticizing the conduct of the Association in these and similar matters, because until we have a full statement of their financial proceedings before us, it is obviously impossible that we should form any just conclusion as to the wisdom of those proceedings. But without violating this rule, I may be permitted to express a doubt whether money Avhich has been once invested for the bishopric is lawfully applicable to any other purpose. And I cannot but feel some surprise that if a clear and permanent income of £600 a-year has for two years been available for a bishopric, there should at this moment be no bishop in the settlement, nor, as far as the public are informed, any immediate prospect of one. I shall conclude, Sir, with one request, which in common fairness I am entitled to expect, will receive attention. I mean that the public may not be told that I have agreed to this, or have advised that, without a publication of my own words upon the matters referred to. I ask this because I am accused of agreeing to'transactions of which I did not know the existence until months after they were completed. And if I ask this in fairness to myself, I demand it as a matter of common honesty towards Mr. Godley who is not here to defend himself from the imputations which such statements are calculated to cast. What Mr. Godley did or did not recommend, ought to be laid before the public in the form of his own despatches, and in no other way directly or indirectly. I have only to add, when I am taunted with pretending ignorance upon matters with which I am really acquainted, that if I do know anything about the financial affairs of the Association more than is known to the public, I know it only under that seal of secresy under which Mr. Godley considered himself to lie in all the matters relating to " Home accounts," and which it is not likely that one of his subordinates will violate. I remain, Sir, Your obedient servant, James Edward Fitz Gerald. 20th April, 1853.

To the Editor of the Lyttelton Times. Sir, —I will not apologize to you for the space you have considerately-permitted me, on three several occasions, to occupy in your columns, since you have, in your discrimination, thought those communications worthy the place you assigned them. They certainly were not penned for the especial edification of your "yawning" correspondent, Democritus, from whom I might well hope to learn the " art to blot;" but were Ito ask him how to proceed, I should expect of him the reply, " I don't recollect;" or, did I request of him the very name of my censor, I should as probably be answered, " Nori mi recordor." In short, this new Democritus, unlike the sage whose name he assumes (who is said to have travelled all over Europe, Asia, and Africa in quest of knowledge), wholly ignores the substance to cavil at the form ; so much for his anxiety to be edified. As I have no means of noticing this self-important critic, but through the medium of your columns, I will venture to hope this communication may be allowed a place in your paper, that I may, in some fashion, be " righted" in the proper spelling of that word. Meanwhile I leave your correspondent to yawn over his own problem.

and to arrive at the Quod est demonstrandum as best he may. I am, Sir,* yours obediently, Zeno. April 25th, 1853.

To the Editor of the Lyttelton Times. Sib, —As a rumour has been circulating lately to the effect that Mr. Fitzgerald does not intend standing for the office of Superintendent, perhaps you will allow me, through the medium of your widely-circu-lated Journal, to state that that gentleman has no intention of retiring. I state this on the authority of a letter in which Mr. Fitzgerald says, "I shall not retire from the Superintendency.". I remain, Sir, your obedient servant, An Elector.

To the Editor of the Lyttelton Times. ' Sik,—Perhaps you will allow me to call your attention to that system of reckless destruction and plunder heretofore so successfully carried on, and now being renewed, by boatmen entrusted with the transit of property from the Port to the Plains. In-' deed I had all but hoped the boasted Conveyance Company had long since put an end to that nefarious practice, from their long-worded reports, &c, &c. ; but I find such is not the case, having lately had some goods conveyed by some of their boats, and delivered in such a state of. destruction as to be all but useless. In many instances it may be rather difficult to find out the guilty parties if we believe the oft-told tale of the " boatmen having received it so ;" but for my own part I can scarcely believe respectable merchants would send goods in such a ruined and plundered state as their unlucky owners are often obliged to receive them. Surely, Sir, something could be done to put a stop to such a system. Were shippers of goods even to exercise a little discretion on whom they bestowed their patronage, it is more than probable the gentle r men of the " light fingers " would have an opportunity of exercising them in some more honest calling. Trusting your pen will suggest some more effectual remedy in your next, allow me to subscribe myself, Your's respectfully, J. E. T.. Christchurch, April 24, 1853.

To the Editor of the Lyttelton Times. Sib,—You will oblige me by inserting the enclosed letter in 'the next number of your paper. I am, Sir, Your faithful servant, R.B.Paul. Casterton, April 27, 1853. Lyttelton, April 27, 1853. My dear Mb. Paul, —I understand from you that a' suggestion has been made to the effect that the investment of the Bishopric Endowment Fund upon mortgage security is contrary to a rule of the Government, which requires such, investment to be in the English Funds or some public securities of that nature. I can only say that I am not aware of such a rule ; nor did 1 ever before hear it suggested. Had there been such a rule it is impossible in my opinion that it should not have been brought to my attention. It was never alluded to by Lord Grey, to whom we communicated our intention to make the investment; nor by Mr. Earnest Hawkins, the Secretary of the Society for the propagation of the Gospel, with whom I had frequent conversations on the subject; nor by Mr. Gladstone, Sir John Coleridge, or Mr. Hubbard, who, as Trustees of the Colonial Bishopric Fund, would be the highest authorities on the subject. Mr. Gladstone is, as you are aware, Lord Lyttelton's brother-i;i-law, and would doubtless not have allowed him to fall into error on such a matter. Sir John Coleridge is one of the members of the Association, and, as I have stated, looked over the mortgage deed. As to Mr. Flubbard; I had (as I have mentioned), several interviews with him, one in company with

Lord Lyttelton, and so far from expressing any doubt as to the propriety of the transaction, he stated to me that it seemed desirable in itself, and quite in accordance with usual practice. If therefore we have fallen into a mistake on this point, it has not been a wilful one. But I do not believe in the existence of such a rule. It would be unreasonable in itself. The Crown could only require an adequate guarantee for the endowment (which in this case is fixed at .£6OO a year), and so long as the security is sufficient it would be idle to cavil at a mere point of form. It will be extremely satisfactory to me to be made acquainted with any farther points which may occur to you as needing explanation, and believe me. My dear Mr. Paul, very truly yours, ' Henry Sewell. The Rev. R, B. Paul.