Untitled

Lyttelton Times, Volume IV, Issue 193, 6 September 1854, Page 3

To the Editor of the Lyttelton Times. Sir, —I regret to find that in the note which you did me the honor to append to my letter of August 28th, you endeavour to make it appear that my opposition to what I consider the errors of the Association and their agents, has been dictated by feelings of personal enmity. You state that I digress to attack my particular enemies. I can only say that the charge is as untrue as the manner you have chosen to bring it forward is unfair; and a little reflection would have shewn you the absurdity of such an accusation. My opposition to Mr. Sewell has been purely upon public grounds, and the worst I have ever said or written of him amounts to this; that he has allowed his zeal for the cause of his clients to carry him further than appears to me just or fair. Very possibly I may be wrong. The latitude that a counsel may give himself in suppressing some facts and distorting others, is after all a question principally for his own conscience, and has seldom, I imagine been considered to affect his private character. While as regards his character as a lawyer, the greater amount of ingenuity he displays in the drfence of a bad cause the greater the credit .he obtains. Such being the acknowledged position of members of the legal profession, I may surely be allowed to criticise the assertions and endeavour to unravel the tortuous proceedings of Mr. Sewell as attorney of the Association without being charged with entertaining feelings of enmity against him. either as a colonist or a legislator, in both of which capacities I freely admit his conduct has been such as to claim our respect and esteem. • Mr. Hamilton's letter which appears m your paper of to-day, has, I confess, greatly surprised me, He accuses me of misrepresenting1 him ! whereas the only allusion I made in my letter to his name was to the effect, that I thought him mistaken if he supposed Mr. Godley's letter to mean, that the "approval"'there spoken of was a fresh

opinion. I did so because I found that every one whom I met with, who had read Mr. Hamilton's letter, believed from its tone that such was his opinion. Mr. Godley's honesty of purpose is universally acknowledged and has never been questioned by me, least of all in my last letter, in which I expressly excepted that gentleman from the charge! brought against the Association.

I am sorry to find that the spirit and language of my correspondence is offensive to Mr. Hamilton, although I am rather at a loss to imagine why this particular letter should have given such umbrage. I am far, however, from justifying the too free use of the colloquial style in newspaper correspondence, although I think the objection he has raised is new to your columns, and when, some short time ago, a writer, signing himself " Cantuariensis," applied to his literary opponent the well-known line, " Oh be thou damned, inexorable dog," I have no recollection of Mr. Hamilton's taking up his pen to denounce such a breach of conventional courtesy ! All this, however, is merely personal to myself, and I should not have troubled your readers with a reply to Mr. Hamilton's letter, had it not been for its penultimate paragraph, which contains a statement, and insinuates advice, open in my opinion to the gravest exception. He states —" For one result to follow upon proof before a proper tribunal of the invalidity of the titles now in question, the objectors have hardly yet prepared the minds of their fellow-colonists. I mean the immediate withdrawal of all the funds devoted to the Religious and Educational institutions which constitute the chief attraction of the Canterbury settlement. It were well for them to pause and ponder over that result." This appears to me to be a mistake.—As regards the Church lands, if the Association's title were upset to-morrow, the only effect would be to place the property in the hands of the Government as trustees for the Church, and the income derived from them would be applicable only to its legitimate use. As regards the mortgage of the £10,000, I cannot imagine that anything but good can accrue to the Church from its being declared illegal. If the Association, as trustees holding that sum in trust for the Bishopric, have lent it out on insufficient security, they are bound To replace it. Whereas should the mortgage be declared legal, and that the bishop's income should be in the shape of a rent-charge upon the public lands of the whole colony, it must be plain to all that great danger would exist of disagreement between the ecclesiastical head of a section of the colonists, and the State, representing all sects alike. If, however, there is a doubt, such as Mr. Hamilton himself once entertained, our course should not be to '■ pause and ponder/ but to search out diligently and discover what our rights really are, and when we find out their extent be prepared to defend them stoutly against, all who would gainsay them. I am, Sir, Your obedient Servant, Alfhed C Ba-sksb,. Chris tehtm-h, Sen. 2. ISS4.