PUBLIC MEETINGS, To Consider the Bishop of New Zealand's Pastoral Letters.

Lyttelton Times, Volume IV, Issue 162, 11 February 1854, Page 6

PUBLIC MEETINGS, To Consider the Bishop of New Zealand's Pastoral Letters.

CIIUISXCUUBCH. On Monday evening according to advertisement, a meeting was held at the Schoolroom by invitation of the Rev. O. Matthias as the Bishop's Commissary, who occupied the Chair, to consider his Lordship's suggestions, as to tlj'e basis of a constitution for the Church in this Diocese. The meeting was well attended and lusted nearly three hours. After prayers the Rev. O. Matthias shortly explained the circumstances under which he had summoned the meeting now, though one of the pastoral letters to which it referred had been before the public for 12 months, but as they had been, till lately, daily eX2)ecling the arrival of the Bishop, the meeting had been deferred until it was known he had sailed for England. The suggestions in the Bishop's draft had been before the Ecclesiastical Committee, by which body some variations, suiting them more especially to the peculiar circumstances of this settlement, had. been made, and as Mr. Jacobs had chiefly suggested these variations in the Committee, and was most familiar with them, he would call upon him to explain their general purport: The Rev, H. Jacobs said, the Ecclesiastical Committee had been at first formed expressly for the purpose of promoting the establishment of a Church Constitution for this Diocese. As the Bishop had expressly invited the opinion of each settlement upon the several points contained in his draft of a Constitution, he (Mr. Jacobs) had felt no scruple in suggesting such modifications of his Lordship's proposals to would render them more suitable to our own case. Iv considering them it was not quite clear what the term " general Convention " em^ ployed by the Bishop meant. It could not mean a Provincial Synod of all the Australasian Churches, as this paper related only to "a Constitution for the Church in New Zealand.' Did the term then refer to the proposed division' of New Zealand into district Dioceses? but then it appeared objectionable that, as proposed in paragraphs 5 and 6, for example, our local endowments, our sites for schools, churches, &c, and the fees and salaries, should be regulated by a convention meeting perhaps at Auckland or Wellington. The general idea therefore running through the variations he had suggested, and which as they now stood had been adopted by a majority of the Church Committee, was to substitute Diocesan for General convention ; so that each Diocese should have the management of its own Church property, whilst in matters relating to Doctrine or Ritual, the sanction of a much larger body of the Church than those embraced in a single colony, should be sought. With these general remarks he would leave the several clauses to be proposed by those who had to bring them successively before the meeting. His Honob. the Superintendent rose to move the adoption of the first three paragraphs. We had no longer any need to dwell on the fact that there is a call for some sort of Church constitution for the Colonies. This question had been discussed on former occasions both here and in Lyttelton, and the other New Zealand settlements, and a movement of the same kMid had originated almost independently in all the Australian Colonies, arising from the necessity of the case in which they find themselves. All were demanding power for the Church to manage her own affairs. It should be distinctly understood that in talking of giving power to the Church, we mean only the removal of disabilities ; the power not to interfere with others but simply to regulate her own affairs. In proposing the three first paragraphs of the suggested basis of a Constitution for the Church, he thought they would all agree that the governing body of tiie Church should be composed of Bishops, Clergy and Laity. With regard to the alteration of General, into Diocesan Convention, they appeared to have met with a difficulty of a kind analogous to that which had presented itself to the imperial Parliament in framing the Church Constitution for New Zealand, when they divided this Colony into six provinces and also instituted a General Assembly. There were subjects such as those alluded to by Mr. Jacobs relating to properly, which would most properly be left to the government of each Diocese ; whilst, on the other hand, there wen: questions relating to Doctrine and articles of Faith which can rest only on a much

jfSjglridei1 foundation or concurrence of representaof large bodies of Christians, such as pH v'ould be a general Council of the Australasian s|pj Colonies. But as such a Synod would meet pM nit rarely, it would form a wholly unfit body to |l| liscuss questions of daily occurrence relating to ||| iroperty and appointment to offices, &c. In ||| egard to the third paragraph, though he would tropose it in the words placed in his hands, he J§| vislied to express his own opinion as he did not pUeoncur in the necessity of electors signing a Igpeclaration that they were members of the of England. He was convinced that ijphe truest and wisest policy of the Church, unwe had some and distinct heresies to op?|gi>ose, was to adopt no narrow test of Church Ughcmbership, but to consider, as in Apostolic JM&iines, every one to bs a churchman who would Jffipwruike of the Sacrament and acknowledge the ||fflCreecls of the Church. Beyond this to require Igmiiy declaration of Church membership was to jjiibaiTow the basis of the Church. With this exof his own difference of opinion on this Swioirit he would propose the three paragraphs Wjjms altered by the! Church Committee. *%?§£ The motion was seconded by Mr. Prichard. ™M Mr. Bhutan wished to explain that this paps [agraph as now proposed did not represent the qpjinairimous view of the Church Committee as l^fcgards the Communicant test for electors of ©ay representatives, and on this point he felt ll||ompelled to move an amendment. He felt a jsfcttiong conviction that it would be found ineonin practice, and would be considered Ijlllxclusive. He thought that they would allow '-£p|)<it the Bishop was a good Churchman, and he 'fgjjtod not proposed this test, nor had Sir George ;?|§fi'ey and others in other settlements who had ???jjpnsidered this clause, and he did not see why "^e, a small community, should adopt a different .'j-ajiew. Some weak brethren whose consciences ~",£we were bound to respect, would he thought 'J^bject to becoming registered communicants'in 'girder to obtain the franchise. He would move V"jfe an amendment to leave out the word " Com- * 'municdnt" o in the first line. "4/Mr. Martin seconded the amendment. ''■■-^.'Mr. Packer concurred Avith Mr. Brittan in as -■having known several of weak or tender con- , sciences who, being involved in secular pursuits, Wider a mistaken sense of duty, as hekionceived, ••M?ruPlecl to receive the Holy Communion, and $$m were well affected to the Church and her "Mjterests. ~ y^i Mi. Bealey thought many persons who were ,v£»ost hostile to the Church would profess that ,£;|hey did not differ on doctrinal grounds, and '4S OU^ call themselves members of the Church if? f -England, and even take the Communion, JdM therefore he thought the negative part of J|3be declaration proposed, ''that they were memgjgbers of no other religious denomination," was ffl Me. Hall had heard no reason offered why "Sr c Commu} li°« test was wrong in principle. g*lr. Brittan's argument rested only on expediency, but there appeared to him a higher involved when we were considering fC° W t0 secure tllose t0 manage the affairs of the gDhurch who should be really heartily well affecg|ted, and he thought that whether* electors or jgglected, they should be communicants. This test &ight not be sufficient of itself, neither the declaration standing alone, but the two combined faswould form the very best test which could be esired. Three out of four people you meet j^'ill say off hand that they belong to the of England, and in times of excitement would, without a proper test, be carried t&by those who were not honest and sincere Churchmen. r. • Mr. Jacobs remarked that the word test was p^apt to create a prejudice, a remnant of the feelgng created by the abuse of the sacramental tf. estl wnen offices of Government depended upon ||the holder being a communicant, and when it ;4^ as aPpHed to mere secular and state purposes. Sjpcre it is not used offensively to exclude from s^offices of emolument, but only as a security gjthat those taking part in Church matters shall |be bond fide members of her body.' S' *? ISi HoNOB in rel)l.V observed that though apye had no power at present to form a constitution we must act and speak as if we had, and tfiie would declare that he had not the slightest grespect for the Church of England as a" limb g«» the State, but only as far as she is a part, of |tlie Church of Christ. We should do away all djfferences between a Christia/i and a jjiiCathen if we were at liberty to discard one by 'ftono all the essentials of a Church. If l>y <-iviu<v ... . -JOB ft

way to wrong feelings under the idea of conciliating weak [brethren we may cut off one of the sacraments of the Church "from our definition o^ a churchman, we may discard everything else. Let us adopt the widest basis known to Christendom, the partaking in the same Sacraments, and the same creeds. The three first clauses into which the fourth was incorporated, as proposed by the Church Committee, were then carried on a show of hands. The Rev. W. Mackie moved the sth and 6th paragraphs. His Howor wished to express his sense of the wisdom of the arrangement in England by which Church property was vested in a number of different corporations, not all in Diocesan Synods, nor in a body of Church trustees, but where every parish was a separate corporation, church property being vested in Deans and Chapters, in colleges, and so on. Thus in times of excitement or revolutionary violence, though it would be easy to despoil a single body, it was very difficult to subvert so many various bodies all interested in the preservation of Church funds. He would therefore move that in clause 6, the words " or other" be inserted after "parochial." The fifth and sixth [paragraphs were then carried, with the addition proposed by His Honor. Mr. Hall, in proposing the 7th paragraph, would not enter into the subject of the Queen's supremacy on which he thought people often had very confused notions, but,by way of shewing that we were not doing anything very heinous in omitting the mention of it in the present paragraph, he would read what was said upon it in the principal authentic documents on. which it was based, which were the Oath of Supremacy, the 36th Canon, and the 37th Article, and as it rested on statute law, it could not be affected by any tact of ours. Mr. Hall moved the 7th paragraph, as altered. The Rev. H. Jacobs could see no reason for submitting our Church Regulations to the Secretary of State for the colonies. It would be far better that the Church in New Zealand should be content to let any voluntary regulations, into which her members may enter, prevail by their own force. Should a Provincial Synod of the Australian Church be assembled, we should indeed desire the sanction of such a body, and, still more, should we live to see a grand council of the Anglican Communion throughout the|world, with the Archbishop of Canterbury as Patriarch and Primate. He believed that union with the Mother Church must be based on agreement with her in essentials ; on the creeds and Sacraments, on Apostolic doctrine and order, on the use of a common version of the Scripture, and a common Liturgy, not on the mere accidents of temporal government. Would any one maintain that what is called the Royal Supremacy is an es"senlial doctrine of the Church? Is it a doctrine of Scripture ? It would be hard to prove it. Is it of the essence of the Universal Church ? Then where was the Church before the line of Constantine ? Is it of the essence of the Reformed Church of England? What then has become of the Church in America since their separation from England? And what would become of the Church in England herself should her government ever cease to be monarchical? The doctrine of the Royal Supremacy may have suited an age when the divine right of kings was an article of belief, but is wholly out of place when the Empire is virtually ruled by a majority of the House of Commons, composed of men of all religions, and especially inapplicable to the 'unendowed, unestablished, unprivileged Church in these colonies. The Royal Supremacy is a sort of lay Papacy which cramps the Church of England, and stands in the way of a complete union of the Anglican Churches throughout the world. The time must speedily come when the oaths and obligations which bind our bishops and clergy will be revised, as they would have been long since but for the suspension ot'ithe powers of Convocation. Mr. Hall has told us what these oaths chiefly are, surely anything so antiquated and obsolete as those are in the present day must speedily be abolished. They were indeed felt by some to be so inconsistent with facts, that they had even been a bar to some excellent men taking orders in our Church. The seventh paragraph as proposed was then carried. Mr. Bjealei moved the Sth clause. It was evident that the fundamental doctrines of the Church, and the authorized version of the

Scriptures, could not lie in any way subject to the decision of any Colonial Church. So suspicious was our own Church of any doctrine propounded by any less authority than that of the whole Church, thar she allows no doctrine to be essential which has not been sanctioned ,by one of the four first general Councils. With regard to the adaptations of the Liturgy to the particular circumstances of a Colonial Church the matter stood on a different ground, and a Diocesan Synod might properly sanction such adaptations. Mr. Brittan moved as an amendment that clause 8 stand as in the Bishop's draft, which was seconded by the Rev. W. Mackie. Mr. Porter thought it would he greatly prejudicial to this settlement if it went forth that a public meeting here had proposed to allow alterations of the Liturgy to be, taken in hand. On higher grwnds too, it would be highly objectionable, as nobody could say where it might stop. For his own part, having gone through many.trials and sorrows he would declare that nowhere could he find prayers so suitable to every emergency as in our admirable Liturgy, and not one of them would he consent to see altered or omitted. Mr. Hall proposed another amendment, explaining more fully the purpose of those who would vary the clause so as to allow a power to the Synod of the Diocese to adapt the' Liturgy to any peculiar exigencies which might arise in a colony, either as regarded the natives or the nature of occasional services at stations, &c, instead of leaving this'to be done irregularly by individual clergymen, as at present. After further discussion Mr. Brittan's amendment was curried—the paragraph being allowed to stand as in the original draft. An additional paragraph referring to the discussions in Parliament on the Colonial Church Regulation Bill having been proposed by Sir T. Taucred, and subsequently withdrawn, the business of the meeting terminated, (after a vote of thanks to the chairman,) by his pronouncing the blessing.

On the following evening-, a public Meeting of Members of tKe Church of England was held in the School Room at Lyttelton. to take into consideration the same subject. The Rev. O. Mathias presided, as at Christchurch. The proceedings, as usual, commenced with prayer, after which the Rev. Chairman made an address explanatory of the objects of the meeting, and calling on those present to discuss the matter in a temperate spirit. 1 Mr. Spoweks having asked whether there was any intention on the part of the chairman or others to introduce to the meeting certain variations suggested in the Bishop's plan, and having received a reply in the negative, then said, that that being the case, although he and others had attended^ fully expecting that some one would have been there to have proposed the adoption of these variations, no course was left but to move at once that the Bishop's plan be adopted. He thought the plan to be a prudent and temperate one, and was in harmony with that recommended by the Bishops in Australia. This being seconded by Mr. Bay field, a conversation took place (in which Dr. Donald, Mr. Porter, the Rev. Mr. Dudley, and others,joined, after \vhich|Capt. [Simeon proposed and Mr. Dumpier seconded, for the purpose of discussion, the following amendment : — " That the general principles proposed by the Bishop be read and seriatim, together with the proposed variations." Mr. 'Spowjsrs said he was quite willing to withdraw his proposition, as he and others had come prepared to discuss the questions raised, but after some little deliberation it was finally resolved to divide on the amendment, which, having been put from the chair, was lost. Mr. Dasipier then rose to propose that the following addition should be made to the Bishop's plan, viz.: — " That in the opinion of this meeting, there should be in each Diocese a separately constituted corporate body, in whom shall be vested, and by whom shall be administered, the church Revenues of such Diocese." He said, he believed the meeting would be unanimous in affirming the principle that the property set apart in the settlement for the Church should be administered by, and for ihe use of, the settlement. This having bfen seconded by Capt. Simeon, was carried unanimously, and the meeting shortly aftev separated.

To the Editor of the Lyttelton Times. Sic, —The Cattle Trespass question has found so many commentators in the Lyttelton Times of late, that I almost fear to ask space for the few lines I now venture to transmit you •on the subject. It seems to have been handled by persons of all interests, and attacked by most on different grounds; but j ret the real and true ground for all these differences seems to be still unchallenged, and I think it will be found in the want of a due and proper administration of the law as it really exists, and not in its want of efficiency. The existing law, when really understood, is clear and undoubted, leaving only a proper and necessary discretion to be exercised by the Jury or Court, and does not, I conceive, either unduly favour or unduly press upon, either the " Cattle Owner" or the " Tiller of the Soil." I agree with your correspondent under the latter assumed name, that " the laws in force in England at the pi-esent day are very explicit." He adds, however, " Every man's ground in the eye of the law, is enclosed, either by a visible fence or imaginary boundary line, and whosoever enters it without the leave of the owner is a trespasser." In this he is not strictly correct. He should have said "is identified as to the boundary," not enclosed: enclosure is the very pith of the question at issue. The law in England, although it entitles a plaintiff to damages for a trespass at law, deprives him also of substantial damages, if occasioned through his own fault or negligence, as if cattle inadvertently stray upon, it from such cause. In addition to that law it is in this colony expressly declared by the " Cattle Trespass Ordinance " and the " Fencing Ordinance," that fencing shall be necessary for enabling the complainant to maintain special, nay, even nominal damages in cattle trespass ; and by the first Ordinance, the fencing must be " substantial," and under the second " sufficient," which taken together, I assume to mean " sufficiently substantial," as against all ordinary cattle. Such profit or value as the cattle owner by his trespass actually derives "from the landowner's .premises by the trespass complained of, must necessarily be recovered under any cii-cumstances by the landowner, according to the quantum valeat which the cattle owner thus derives from the plaintiff's land, but the lohole loss or damage which the landowner may suffer is a totally different matter, and his'right to recover which vf ill depend upon a variety of circumstances which the defendant may have to plead in excuse or justification. It is plain that a landowner may not recover substantial damages for an injury which he had occasioned by his own negligence, although he might in England recover strictly nominal damages for the mere invasion of his property. In this colony, under the Cattle Trespass Ordinance, the plaintiff is not enabled to recover even nominal damages unless the lands be substantially fenced. A complainant here as well as in England is bound to do his part to avoid inadvertent trespass or injury to his property, and if he omit to do so, it is at his own risk. It is but common sense and reasonable that it should be so. He well knows his neighbour's cattle have a right to depasture on the adjoining lands from which he would purpose to separate his own, and yet he crops such land without protecting it. He comes to the danger and provokes it. He puts down the temptation to undiscriminating brutes, which have no knowledge of ideal boundaries or any other than sufficient fences, and yet complains that they eat his cabbages. In a due administration of the law the

rights of both parties are to be considered. The law of England permits the excuse of a wanting or imperfect fence in mitigation of damages in trespass, and a complete answer in " trespass on the case," as the lawyers call the remedy in cases where the complainant is not entitled to the land itself, but to the right of depasturing only. Cases however do occur in which parties having no right of pasturage whatever turn their cattle adrift which live upon their neighbours' lands, this man can have no justification, for he has no right. The law, however, to deter litigation and frivolous cases, has wisely provided in England, and the superior courts hei*e, that if the plaintiff shall not recover damages to the extent of 405., he shall not recover more costs than damages, unless the Judge certify the trial of a right to be in issue beyond the mere damages sought to be recovered. Looking, therefore, at the rights of the cattle owner (exceeded sometimes perhaps in the exercise) and at the obligations cast by the law upon the land-owner for his own protection, his responsibility for his own negligence, and the obligations naturally thrown upon each land-owner generally to contribute to the improvement of the country from which he abstracts the land he purchases from the "Waste, all previously open to pasture right, and knowing that by the Cattle Trespass Ordinance he is bound to fence"it substantially before he can recover damages for even nominal trespasses, and that by the Fencing Ordinance he must make his fence " sufficient" before he can recover a portion of the cost of making it, it can never be doubted that fencing is a positive obligation on the land-owner-in this coloay, to entitle him to recover special damages from his neighbour, more damages iv fact, than the Licensee of pasturage rights can recover from the land-owner for like inadvertent trespass by his cattle upon land equally unfenced, but where there Is no obligation to fence on the part of the pasturage owner. The summaiy remedy given by the Resident Magistrate's Court Ordinance does not affect the discretion of the Court as to costs, or the power of that officer to determine as a jury, whether the fence complained of be sufficiently substantial or not for keeping out the cattle complained of. The law therefore to be administered by the courts of this colony, is that laid down by the common law of England, varied only by the Ordinances of the colony, not at the caprice of the Justice. The reasonable and proper amount of damages is still in the discretion of the justice, as of a jury, but in assessing it, he is to be governed by that law, and not by the übiquitous opinions of the various gentlemen wlio from time to time, no doubt less experienced, take upon themselves to represent the Resident Magistrate in the administration of civil law in the inferior courts of the colony in trespass cases. Hence I fear the right conclusion to be, that the law is sufficient in the hands of competent administrators, and only requires to be properly administered to be sufficiently effective : that it is the want of a proper understanding of the law in such cases, and not its inequality, which has given rise to decisions ridiculously at variance upon the same point. Let the law be properly administered in our inferior courts, and I believe there would be no need for an amendment of it. Your correspondent " A Reader" need then be under no apprehension of his friend the stock-owner finding himself persecuted on his run, by the 50 acre landowner, for continual trespasses whilst unfenced. The land-owner going there with his eyes open would not then be so ready to disturb the I stock-owner by invitations to the Resident Magistrate's Court for the value of the mere (

herbage taken by his cattle from the 5Q acre section, which he could more pleasantly obtain for the mere asking, without goi^ to law; and the jurisdiction which the court has as to costs, would soon put matters right in other respects. The Police Regulations, if duly enforced in towns would soon put a stop to Cattle Trespass in those localities where cattle are kept without a shadow of right, and in most cases be a sufficient protection to the owners of town lands enclosed or unenclosed With regard to the nature and sufficiency of the fence, it is plain that the object of fencing is the keeping out of all ordinary cattle ; there can, therefore, be no difficulty in arriving at the conclusion that no fence is sufficiently substantial which will yield to oi'dinary cattle, and that if such fence should be thrown down by cattle well known and shewn to be determined fencebreakers, and therefore no ordinary cattle that the owner would be liable in such case on proof of the scientur. That fencing1 is of the. greatest advantage and importance to the colony there can be no doubt, and it ought to be encouraged and enforced as far as possible. Should it be expressly imposed as a condition of purchase upon all grants of land to be done by the purchaser within limited periods, and in a manner suited to the country, it would as undoubtedly have the effect of ensuring to the colony not only the more rapid and profitable developement of its resources by improvement of the lands, but would equally tend to prevent purchasers merely for speculative purposes, and advanced prices, buying- up lands to a greater extent than they should see their way to cultivate or improve. I am, Sir, Yours obediently, A Looker-Ox. Feb. 1,1854.

To the Editor of the Lyttelton Times. Sir, —As my letter of the 25th ult. did not reach you I will with your permission briefly notice it before replying to a " Tiller of the Soil. 3' The above letter was an answer, somewhat in detail, to " A Pilgrim of the: Plains," I shall now however merely make one or two remarks on this gentleman's letter. Confidence and greenness are as certain to go hand in hand as dogmatism and ignorance. Need Igo further than the letter in question to prove the truth of these acknowledged facts ? We see a man who declares himself to be of " recent importation" and to have " no practical acquaintance with the matter," —" questioning the legality of any New Zealand Ordinance whatsoever," Sec, &c, with dictatorial importance. We see the same individual saying he thought he was coming to a place where, " with the advantage of a Constitution an intelligent community would be enabled to work out all the English laws for the advantage to the people." Who ever heard of a legislative body " working out -laws"—or assisting an intelligent community to work them out.' What a heartfelt appreciation of the advantages of our new Constitution this gentleman must have! And now for " A Pilgrim's" final and conclusive argument—dashed and doubledashed—it is an answer to one of my " comments" drawn up {in the form of an analogous case, comparing money of mine in the bank to the right of pasturage over my^ neighbour's unoccupied section. The entire want of analogy in the two cases, as bearing on the question, is only accounted for by the infirmity of the Pilgrim for writing on subjects he has " no practical acquaintance with." There is a right of ownership in money in the Bank which no person has permission to infringe—there is a right however

§§jj»er the unoccupied sections which the proiffltietor tacitly allows the public to make use |lBj: it would therefore be equitable and exjgifedient to make a law (if required) to prethe appropriation of another person's Spoiiey in the bank, but would be inequitable "llsM mex Pec^enfc t°. legalize any act of an i^Mdividual that would shut out the public lUom unoccupie<^ sections which the owners t||Picitly permit them to use. *««g To turn now to the letter of a " Tiller the Soil." I appeal to your readers ,g|ijrhether he is fairly arguing the actual -^■latter of difference between us ;—whelyjlher he is standing to his original pro§|||osition, which brought me into the field. Jfflje commences his correspondence by stain other Avords, that there ought to be $11 law to protect the unfenced crops of a Jfjiind tiller, and calls upon the Provincial I'jEouncil to pass such a law. I am forced JSp reiterate that it is here I join issue with 'ffiiin. The question raised is, would the .jlliouncil be benefiting the Settlement at by passing such a law ? The questions ")sjfljt-Are cattle owners stock farmers ? What j||i the English trespass law? What are ie New Zealand Ordinances, and when Jwere they passed ? and a variety of others into the discussion—having nothing -v^jjWhatever to do with the argument between ?f||A Tiller of the Soil" and myself; which "<ll&as to h°w it would be advisable and expey'^ent that the local legislature should act. -'■"'lf the English law applies why did my call upon the Provincial Council N ;to legislate, and if it does riot why bring it ? Neither the English laws nor the Colonial Ordinances can apply in a Question raised as to how they can best be SHpeiseded: the local legislature has to cbnsider alone the equity and expediency of a case as it affects the various interests of the community at large. No one, I presume, , ever doubted that an action for trespass /would lie against A for going on to B's ' Jtod, tmt this is a very different thing from granting full or even approximate damages ■for injury done to unfenced crops,—which jj£* a Tiller's desire,—for what protection /^lpuld a law be that did not give such daSwages ? correspondent "A Reader" just 4^ ces UP mv argument —only gives it a application. I showed the effects of c legislation desired by " A Tiller of }i$ c Soil" on a very important part of the #ttleraeiit,-tb inhabitants of Christand its vicinity,—the cattle owners. sSs" Rea(l. er" shows how fatal a blow it ;hOf ould st # rike in precisely the same way at a lsl less .unP ortant class, —the occupiers of "•^fi! 6 . 11S)—^ie stock farmers ; showing f-'Jinat it i s not a question between the land ler and cattle owner alone, but between c former and the whole pastoral interest $jtf the Settlement. IJ. Allow me > Sir, to withdraw now from the discussion which I do not think can have -J^ U. eh further light thrown on it. I retire l# ti. sfied witn having raised my feeble voice 3jpinst a cry for class legislation. closing, I will briefly allude to J-Ahe Tiller's last letter. It well deserves the appellation (with a slightly different meanfelflg) annexed to it by his ally " A Pilgrim," J* is " mildness itself." I complained in my imst of his not sticking to his text, he there;;.«re begins by accusing me of " deviating .^Wom the main question, &c."—an elegant paraphrase of the conclusive retort, " you're Jjfcother." He follows this up by stating i I " m^stifV the subject"—none so rWind, Sir, as those that won't see. ' :M ,Then c:OT^es the " Cattle Owner" cry alluded to above ; and next, declining to anl'JWer me, he adopts the logical expedient of :»ughmg at my style. My antagonist Avrites f * c.° l urse fo»" elegance and dignity, or he yrpnld not cut up my want of both. I write

for a principle. There is a plash about his would-be sarcasm that attracts by its momentary glare,—but ends in smoke: it startles, by the " noise which results from its hollow emptiness." It is scarcely " dignified," to say nothing of the " elegance," to speak against the colour of the enemy's uniform when you cannot dislodge him. After these pointless effusions he exhumes some old historians to support his view of the English trespass law, —a question I never entered upon, and winds up his letter by attempting to conjure one's sympathies in his favour by a senseless allusion to the old country. The closing paragraphs remind one forcibly of the morbid though plausible generality of the wellknown Pecksniff, without their pertinence ! —a clumsy edition of that gentleman's " God bless you all." Let me, in conclusion, advise your correspondent not to give himself the trouble again of " showing his teeth when he cannot bite." I remain, Sir, Your obedient servant, A Land and Cattle Owner. The Plains, Ist February.

To the Editor of the Lyttelton Times. Sir,—You would render a great service to the Province if you would make known beyond its limits the. critical position in which we are placed by the want of an adequate supply of labour. The " Lyttelton Times" appears to me not, in this respect, Ito have hitherto done its duty as a faithful exponent of the public wants and requirements ; and one consequence of this neglect is an apparent ignorance, in the neighbouring settlements and in England, of the condition to which we are reduced. I heard the other day of a settler in the Northern island, infinitely better off for European workmen than we are, and sur--1 rounded by a Maori population of the best character, sending to Canterbury for " farm servants out of employment." The capitalists also from England who have joined us within the last twelvemonths, have generally thought it unnecessary to bring any labourers with them, and have seriously aggravated the difficulty from which we already suffered. I almost doubt whether the full extent of this difficulty is even known in Lyttelton. The cost of labour on the Plains has within the last twelvemonths increased fifty per cent. Carpentei's wages have risen from Bs. to 12s. per diem, those of agricultural labourers from 4s. 6d. to 75., of other workmen in the same proportion, and they are rising further every day. Every termination of an agreement between master and servant, is marked by a demand for a large augmentation of pay, to which the former must submit, if he be not content to see his crops ungathered, or his flocks untended. There is nothing either of increased cost of living to the labourer, or of increased profit to the employer, which would at all justify this revolution in wages. One hears, it is true, great boasting about^the prosperous condition of the Province, but the abundance of money, and the consequent high prices now prevailing, which seem [the. sole foundation for this opinion, do not arise from what is the real basis of solid and lasting prosperity, viz., a profitable return on invested capital. Our position seems to me analogous to that of a tradesman, who is expending money, not realized by his business, in making, at a very unusual cost, extensive additions to his establishment. His prosperity must depend upon the return which, in the course of years, this outlay will yield. So it is with us, and I much fear that many persons recently settled here, who are investing at

exorbitant prices, will be disappointed with the result of their speculation. But to return from this digression. The high price of labour is not the worst feature in our present position ; it is impossible for a farmer, stockowner, or other man of business to say whether, if additional labour is absolutely needed by him to save his property from deterioration or ruin, he will be able to procure it at any price and of any kind. There is no longer any inducement to good conduct or exertion on the part of a servant, a bad man being as sure of speedy and profitable employment as he can wish to be. To use a common phrase^ " Masters are servants, and servants masters:" The ruinous effects of such a deficiency in one of the chief elements of our progress, are obvious. A large amount of capital is lying idle at the Bank, which would be gladly employed in the developement of our resources. New comers are unable to fence and break up more land than they can till /with their own hands : those who preceded ■.them, and who would gladly extend their cultivations, erect buildings, and carry out numerous other improvements, find it impossible to do so. Among the elder and more experienced colonists there is a disposition to curtail and even suspend operations where this can be done without too great a sacrifice. To enquiries from home as to the advisability of emigrating to Canterbury, one can only answer that it would be folly to b ring capital here until the supply of labour is placed upon a different footing ; and unless this is done, some of the present settlers about to revisit the old country, will probably never return. They feel that although their capital may yield them here a larger nominal profit than it would at home, it will not provide them to the same extent with the comforts of civilized life, immunity from drudgery and manual labour, and consequent leisure for social arid intellectual pursuits. Pray, Sir, do what you can to remove this stumbling-block in the way of our progress, this cloud which mars the fair prospect that Canterbury would otherwise offer to industry and enterprise. You can do much by frequently bringing the subject under public notice, and thus making our wants known in the neighbouring colonies and in England. Also by urging upon the Provincial Government the adoption of measures for the introduction of labour from Great Britain. The current revenue is, I . admit, inadequate for the purpose, but neighbouring Provinces have already announced their intention of effecting this object by means of a loan ; our credit is as good as theirs—why should we not do the same ? And do not omit a word of advice to the labouring class, but shew them the impolicy of taking too great an advantage of the monopoly which they happen at this moment to enjoy. I am no advocate for the introduction of Chinese, or even Germans, but already these schemes would now find supporters among many who formerly opposed them ; and if the working-meti impose ruinous terms upon their employers, they will drive the latter to the adoption of remedies, of which the effect will, ere long, be severely felt by the labourers themselves. Your obedient Servant, Obseky-EE. The Plains, Fob 1,1854.

To the Editor of the LyHelton Times. Sill. —Iv reply to part of a letter in your last week's paper, signed '" R. Davis," I am not surprised at him : though he has been a member of the Colonists' Society for more than iifteen months, and not to know the rules ! The visitors he brought with him evaded payingl the sixpence he speaks of. Ke says,

He says, " a few complied with this demand." For Ins "information, the party he brought in with him did not; the only gentleman who paid for admission was Mr. Hay, of Pigeon Bay, who took a five-shilling ticket the following day. • And again, he says " the money-takers," there was only one money-taker. Likewise, the Chairman and Committee were aware of the half-price dodge; but for the wholeprice dodge being brought into operation at another meeting, I think it demands some thought on the part of the Society, ■whether or not this practice shall be continued. Mr. Davis said on the hustings, he was going to retire from politics, but here he is again : " Age cannot wither him," &c. If Mr. Davis also will only look at the Rules of the Lyttelton Colonists' Society, he will there see the whole of the prices, &c, and not trouble the " money-taker" to tell him. I am, Sir, Yours respectfully, The Money-taker. "Rule 3. The subscription shall be Is., to be paid in advance. Persons not Members of the Society shall be permitted to be present at the ordinary meetings of the Society on payment of 6d.'eacb, but shall not have the right of voting."