CORRESPONDENCE.

Lyttelton Times, Volume V, Issue 227, 3 January 1855, Page 7

CORRESPONDENCE.

To the Editor of the Lylteltnn Times. Sib,—Your correspondent " R.," snine lime ago, and Mr. Mackie, more recently in a letter to the Standard, have a-ked the attention of .Churchmen to liie present condition of the Church oi' England in i!,i s P.ounce. I hope the subject \\\\\ meet wish the attention which US importance should command. It j s time that aeiive jn-sidicaUtej.s were taken to im-el our present necessities, and to prepare for others wiiich will rapidly incn-tse upoii us If we deiay much lon-rer they will soon he round mi pressing and s» iiuineio is that we shall not l>e ashamed to seek tior afrai.i to accept from n.isl Bij.;».ry homes m I, e : ] t:tl chaniai-le aid wliicii lias bu (le^niilt'it our church iti utin-r colonies. Doublless In ],uild a church is a praiseworthy act. Ji ib an act. liuH t v, :r , 1,,u very iiiip.rfectiv ptrfonned if no provision l.c in:hiJ for » lu ini<ler tooffic-iaieiii it. iiuu-ve.t iht-n all is not i'O:ie. The least iinponant iunction of a elerp\man, to my miv.l, is h'u performance of .Uivj«eSt-n-ice on Sun(iay. If a ilistiicl require a church, it equally requires a resident cleryyhi«iii ; for religion is not to lie put on specially on Sundays, iil;e clean shirts: the wee' !v paro"clnal dtilies of (he cler-yinau are those,'i coiicei\e, in which his real 'power for «»ood may lie hesi put foitli. In ihij ijsiis from house to house of the least educated of his flock, minisUihj«r i v i" H(i s j c jj am j a fli; c . e( j t guiding cou-

soling, comforting,—in this consists his real work, and this is his highest avocation. The Gospel was not taught alone, nor chiefly, in the Synagogues on the Sabbath: it was-spread abroad among the people by daily teaching, and brought to them in their private homes by the Disciples, whom they received gladly and hospitably. For the last two years the remuneration for services of all kinds has been steadily increased, while those only of ministers of religion remain unnoticed by our congregations. The fact is simply disgraceful to us. What—and if there is an ecclesiastical fund to which some few of us only have contributed many years ago—is that to relieve us from all further attention to our duties? Oragain, if we have built a church for ourselves in one place, are we selfishly to refuse assistance to those who need a church and a elsewhere? What the Wesleyaus are dninsr at l-yitelton, and the Scotch Church on the Plains, is something real and practical. Let us not be put to shame by numbers fewer than ourselves. I see no reason to prevent members of the church doing out here, what they are able to do in England. Association* are formed there to raise funds for local as well as general purposes, and have always a certain annual income iruaranteed to them by donors, on v\hose earnestness they can rely. There are not a few in this Settlement who contribute nothintr- towards chursh purposes at present, but who would doubtless »la«llv guarantee a certain annual sum to a <reneral fund for payment of the clergy. I suppose the eouimunicant« of the Church of England amount to at least 200 in thi<'Settlement; few of them are unable to spare £ I per annum ; many could easily <rive £n. They ouirht to rai<e 'asily £400 a yea.-ammnrst tliem. That sum might be appropriated by an elected Committee of Management actinir in conjunction with the Bishop and the Trustees of Ecclesiastical property." "What is needed now is organization and union. The subject is one which rests properly wiih the laity. It ou«rht to be taken in hand before we lose move of theelersrv whose sei vices gratuitously rendered we have so long accented without even a bare return of thank<. John Bull at home and John Bull colonist retains, I hone, tbe same character for common jjenerosiiy which ln> has always considered to be one of his attributes. I am Sir, your obedient servant, H.

T<> the Edhor of the Lytlehnn Times. Sir.— T observe in your paner of the 30th uH. ;ui official announcement hv order () f })is honor the Superintendent, who desires it to he linlilieii that peisons encroaching on the public roads, whether by r.nsin<r bank* thereon or tlijr<x'\wj ditches, will be pitosrccuriiD. This is a matter nf far too ureat imnortauce to (lie landowner ami occupier t«> pas< over without comment. I believe it will be found thai nearly every acre of land baviuir a road finnt.-iL-e ;md already enclosed hv a ditch and hank las been so enclosed in the usual way ; that is, liy piaoiiiir the bank and the soil on tin; owner's land and t.ikinir the ditch from the nub!ic ruad, and for this customary practice there lias been, I believe, authority both as regard" the habit .nf other 'sohniies, and the iiisiriuTlions |ii veil 1 1* the first setlleis. 'I'he praeiice beir, u , iiasjieen followed ever since. But his honor, or the liusy K'xecutive, s^em to think that this is an occasion for cavil, and that they are jus-i'f)t-d in tine.iteniii-r prosecutions ; "and they have assumed this holilness, helievin<r tho lawtube on their side. But what says tlio Ordi-naut-eou the subject ? Why noihin'ir. What do lawyers say of the la v of the ease? why th;>t it, is at brst a (iouhlful point. "Well theii if hi\Vyeis are divided in opinion, and if the Ordinance j- silent, how are we to arrive at. a faircondnsinu? 1 here is hut one way 1 apprehend to do so, and that is a very simple one. Governments and Executive C)uncil>, despite all thedr empty display and vaunted authority, and assumptions of power, ar" convenient machines for keepin- the Miirisil-circlL- in (.roper order Tiiey are however but a body of piivaie iudivi iuals, united together by the consent of the people io icprsisciit collectively personal intends; au<l it follows thai all acts winch would h.. immoral or (tnesti.inabl.., as between individuals in private life, would be equally so as between the individual ami the collective body. If tlien we have no specific

moutiiiii made in ilio Ordinance in reference t KtiAD sij>u fences, some light is thrown on tli e subject when we refer to the Fencing Ordinance as between nnghbours. There could he no otiici way of settling the question. The bunk and ditch occupy i.'i all v space of 12 feet— «h ditch 6 feet wide and the soil tuken from it backin» up the sod wall covering <? feet more, Tlie first occupier of two adjoining properties makes lij 3 selection, and has either the ditch, or ilm ),.,„]. and soil on his laud, the other is on that of hi s neighbour's; and the Ordinance allows a claim equivalent if my -memory serves me well, to not mom than 15s per chain for the work if it is not shared between tno parties. And it also justf. fies one of the parties -repairing and ciiar<nn<» tlie other with his proportion -of the cost." ft seems then that the law has clearly eiiotKMi settled this question for individuals occupying adjoining .section*;, Now, Sir, I desire to' ask you What earthly difference there can he between individual rights in the two cases. Say I have twelve and a half chains of road fronta ire "-and twenty chains of side leinr^ dividing my land from my neighbours—j s it reasonable that I am not to ehiim -of il le eollet-iive body of private individuals . whose interests are common in the highway, Uie same amount ol justice which the luw of common sense from my neighbour awrds to me? Why should I sacrifice 12 feet nf land for mv ditch and b;mlc on 1 the road sid», and onl\ (Jt'eei in the oiher.case? I Why should I be- called upon to sacrifice six I feet in width for a ditch alou«r the whole of the I road side of my land, possibly to drain that of I mv neighbours and the r<<ad 100 and the aris- 1 tocratic tovvn<m«u—uot he compelled in like I manner for the puidic convenience to give It p |j six feet in width of his- freehold rights lor the i construction of a p.neioent that we may not ' soil our hob-nail shoes by taking to the liMi | road. I You will render us "-country bumpkins" a j 'jre.u service if yon will tell us whence this I bounce is derived., noon what amhoriiv wo arell threatened with prosecution; Is it the natural I coiwquenee of the aiiditioti oi a legal-adviser I to the Executive Council ? or is it a freak I ot the Provincial Secretary? lam disposed to I think that an unnonnccm ;ut from the Exeeu- | tivc to the c flee I thai the act nf the people was | in this respect illegal, and drauin<r attention to 3 public docutnenis in which their ' ditty was de-Si fined, would have been, as a .fust step, the wisest j one for a Superintendent when aduressiujr him- H self to the whole body of the people in ihe Set-1! ilenv.-nt, the greater part of whom have placed» themselves under the pains and penalties ■ heß threaten!'". Proper investigation would haveß ensued, and the officer would have r<c,;ivedß couiteou< consideration and "respectful treat-If ment. Now there may be defiance of an illH assumed auiimriu, ami contempt for tlie boast.! Before I conclude I am desirous of askin" howl tin,- liireat stands : suppose Ihe law lis-.juMify ill —in reference t.i lands uitJr, s.iy ;>() chains of §j frontage—and where some 20 chains only have j beon Iciiceii ; are we to have the line broken, or j will the Executive fill up the'ditch? Why does » not the Government at once adopt thy plan of I ditching the wiiolt; of the road i'rontaje of all S the lands upon a highway, whether sold, oecu- I pied, or not, and charge the cost to the owner or J occupier? This would effectually drain the | roads and set. the question at ivst. ' |l 1 am, yours &c., p VIATOII. j