CORRESPONDENCE.

Lyttelton Times, Volume V, Issue 235, 31 January 1855, Page 5

CORRESPONDENCE.

! To the Editor of the Lyttclton Times., ; S Piu, —Perhaps it may soothe the excited feelin'J^of Mr. Spovrers, if, it is pointed out to him that the Church Trustees have no power to do what is required of them, viz., subdivide the Parish of Christchuroh. The 9lli clause of their Ordinance precludes them from altering the limits of any existing Parish without the consent of the Bishop. Had this been pointed out at the meeting;, it might have saved a great (leal of talk. Yours truly, A. Layman.

To the Editor of the Lyltelton limes. Sir, —As the " framer" of the petition you alluded to in your leading article of last Saturday, I claim my right to be beard in reply to the unfounded and unwarrantable insinuations in which you have indulged in thatbrilliautefFusion. You state that I have forjrolton to quote the 75th clause of the Constitution Act. I beg leave to assure you you are mistaken; I did not quote that.clause simply because it has nothing whatever to do with the point at issue. In that petition I have entirely waived all mention of the rights the colonists might have acquired by the action of the 75th and 76th clauses of the Constitution Act, and am acting on the admission for the sake of argument, that the provisions of the Constitution Act, as regards the land in question, are actually in force.at the present moment. I presume it will not be doubted that some land regulations are in force in the Canterbury Block. And as none others hare ever been proclaimed, and we have Sir George Grey's word that it is so, I think it capable of demonstration that the regulations published under the authority of the Canterbury Lands' Act are still in force within the Block. The leading feature of those regulations may be shewn by the following quotation from the 3rd clause of the second spction of the first Canterbury Lands' Act: "llural land shall be sold at not less than £3 per acre, including the sums contributed for special purposes." These sums for special purposes we are elsewhere informed amount to £2 10s., leaving 10s. per acre, which is said in the legalised terms of purchase to be the sum " paid for the land." It is useless to say that the Association's power having lapsed, and the powers of the Canterbury Acts being no longer paramount, that therefore these regulations have ceased to have the force of law. Their continued legality is owing to their being put in force by the authority, of the Constitution Act, as recognized and ratified by the General Assembly. Governor Grey claimed the right under the provisions of the Constitution Act to make laws for the regulation of the sales of the Waste Lands, and instead of making new ones for the Canterbury Block, he continued the old ones in force—including not meTely the levying of the £3 per acre, but also the appropriation of the money to the several funds—as may be seen on reference to the letter from the Colonial Secretary to the Commissioner, dated January 14th, 1854: " Any portion of the funds which may be applicable to public works, or to emigration, or to church and school purposes." Whatever doubt may formerly have existed as to Sir G. Grey's right to make this arrangement is now at an end, for in the Ist clause of the Waste Lands' Act of 1854, the General Assembly declare that " all regulations for the sale, letting, disposal, and occupation of the waste lands of the Crown in New Zealand now in force within the said colony, or any pavt thereof, are hereby confirmed and declared to have been valid from the time when the same were put in force." You admit this, but then you say " the appropriation of the funds accruing therefrom is settled by the Constitution Act." From which you of course infer that the appropriation of the whole £3 is so, to be disposed of by. the General Assembly. A. bold assertion truly, and as patriotic as hold. But if the General Assembly knowingly adopted such a construction when they legalized Sir G. Grey's continuance of the Association's land regulations, they were guilty of legalizing a fraud. They authorized the Government to undertake a. contract it had neither the power "or the intention to fulfil. What, under those regulations, docs the party selling the land do? ITe takes 10s. as the price of the lnnd, and £2 10s. as contributions for special purposes.

Taking a contribution from another involves a contract on fthe part ot the receiver of it to see to its application to the purpose for which it was contributed. And what is more, the Government have acted upon'this principle, and have returned to Mr. Cracroft Wilson the JS2OO due-to him by those regulations for emigration purposes, out of the money paid by him at the period of his purchase of a 200 acre section, which purchase was made subsequent to the cessation of the Association's land-selling powers. If: part of the contribution, may thus be claimed from the Government, why not the remainder ? If, therefore, the General Assembly, when they legalised the " Regulations for "the sale, letting, disposal, and occupation of the Waste Lands," included in that category, not only the sum received by the Commissioner as the price of the land, but also the forced contribution for local [purposes which they took from the purchaser at the time of the purchase, with the intention of afterwards appropriating the money so paid to purposes foreign to those for which they were contributed, they were guilty of conniving at a public swindle ! Fortunately, however, we shall see that whatever their intentions may have been, their actions have not kept pace with them. The money paid under the Canterbury regulations consists of two parts, the "price of the land," and the " local rate." The Constitution Act makes no mention of local rates in the 66th clause, which hands over to the General Assembly the " revenue arising from taxes, duties rates and imposts levied in virtue of any act of the General Assembly, and from the disposal of the Waste Lands of the Crown." The "revenue from the disposal of the Waste Lands" must mean the price paid for the land" And the fourth to be paid to the New Zealand Company must be derived from the same fund and no other. I know that the case of the New Zealand Company may be quoted against this view, where the price of the land was £l per acre, and yet where a certain proportion was set apart for emigration and public purposes. The cases however are totally dissimilar. The New Zealand Company's Act contains no provision whatever as to the price of the land, or the distribution of the revenue arising from its sale. Any such contracts were merely agreements entered into voluntarily between the Company, ■ and its land-purchasers. I But with us the case is different. Here the contract subsists between the Crown through Ahe Association and the laud:p.urchaser, and when the Crown has dismissed the Association from its position, the contract is directly between the Crown and the people. And its fulfilment may be justly claimed as long as there exists a Crown to give, and a people to receive the guaranteed benefits. When, therefore, the Crown in the Constitution Act gives the' General Assembly for their free use the revenue of the Waste Lands, it cannot mean to include the "special" contributions in question, as those the Crown has bound itself to see appropriated to the local purposes for which they are contributed. If, therefore, the whole of the money paid at the period of the purchase of the land is to be placed at the free use of the General Assembly after deducting one-fourth for the New Zealand Company's debt, the Government bad no right to exact the £2 10s. for special contributions, and should return that money to the purchasers. But if the Government persists in taking the contribution it must be evident to all -that they thereby enter into contract to expend it according to agreement, and .in case of refusal they can be forced to do so by a. court of law. This, Sir, I have fairly explained to every persoii I have asked to sign the petition at which you take such umbrage. Therefore, the assertion that people have been hoaxed and entrapped Jinto signing it had better have been spared. And I claim the publication of this refutation of it in. your next paper as an act of justice to myself. With regard to the editor of the Standard, I leave him to defend himself, only recommending you, Mr. Editor, to practise what you preach, and study the dates of the-let-ters you allude to in your criticisms I am, Sir, "Your obedient servant, * "Tub Fr.vmkr" of the Petition addressed to His Excellency the Officer administering the Government.

To the Editor of the Lyttelton Times. Sir, —I venture through jour indulgence to address my fellow churchmen in this Province, in the hope that a few words may tend to "allay a feeling, which, for the first time since the establishment of the church heie, threatens it with disunion. I will not offer any opinion on the recent proceedings of the Church Trustees. I could not recall what may be said, either in their dispraise or in their defence, without prolonging, if not increasing, the feeling of antagonism to their proceedings which has manifested itself. lam anxious rather to call attention to the best course to be taken for the future, and under existing circumstances. The bye-laws which have been passed and have been confirmed at i.the recent meeting at Lyttelton arfi now, whether for better or worse, finally and legally in force ; and I would venture to suggest whether the duty of all of us to our Church, and the solemn charge laid upon the clergy especially to provide for the spiritual necessities of its members, does not require us to use such means as are presented to us, however different they may be from what they might individually have desired, to build up the church in this settlement upon a sure and permanent basis. The election of the Trustpes will remove every obstacle in the way of the immediate [ transference of the property of the Chiuch, from I the hands of the Association, to those of the | Corporation appointed by law to accept that i Trust. I know it has been suggested that Mr. Sewell ought not to hand over the property to Trustees elected, as the first unfortunately will have been, amidst a great difference of opinion. I cannot think that Mr. Sewell will for a moment think liiinself justified in adopting that suggestion. I cannot believe that any one sincerely desiring the welfare of the Church wonld wish him to do so. I think the suggestion will upon consideration be regretted by none more than its author. Mr. Sewell will no doubt remember, as we must, that until this transfer of property has been effected, there can be no hope of obtaining a Bishop for the Diocese of Canterbury ; and I need not impress upon churchmen, ifaat the first necessity of the Church here is tlsepresence of a Bishop. There is no obstacle in the way of the immediate appointment of a Bishop, except the doubt existing as to the security of the endowment required by the Crown prior to his appointment. The first steps towards quieting that doubt will be the acquisition by the Church itself inthe Province, of the whole property now in the hands of the Association. This consideration alone should be sufficient to induce us to merge all minor differences of opinion in the endeavour to get the Board of Church Trustees efftV ciently to work. Another important feature in 'the . present state of feeling is the anxiety generally expressed for the provision 'of.competent incomes .for the clergy, and the effort being maiie to buiid new churches. It is probable that within the ensuing year churches will be built at Kaiapui, Riccarton, Christcburch Quay, and on the Avon. I believe the funds are already raised for most of these churches. The building '««f these churches will involve the appointment of regular incumbents, the definition of the districts belonging U> each, and the immediate construction of "'Parishes under the Church Property Trust Ordinance conesponding with those districts. This will be the first duty of the new Trustees. It will then be their task to see hoxv the funds which they will have at their disposal arising from the property of the church, may be dealt with so as to create a proper incomefor tfie incumbent of each Parish. I canuuc anticipate that these funds will at all satisfy the demands which will be made on them. Funds will no doubt have to be provided from other; sources, at all events for some years to come. There seems to be a great disposition on the part of the members of the church to take some steps for providing those funds, and various means have been proposed for so doing. But it is probable that any efforts which may be made will be more successful, that any appeal which it may be necessary to make to churchmen will be"more likely to be met liberally am?cheerfully, if it be first known and distinctly put forward, what are the real wants of the church, what is the whole annual income required, and what is the amount alieady availa> ble out of the existing endowment ? I cannot but think that swell a public statement is essential to anything like a general and uniform effort to- provide fov the efficiency of the church.

I would present to you one other consideraration. There is certain property of considerable value which was presented as an endowment for the college, but which will be lost if the college be not established now within a few months. This entails a duty upon the Trustees which admits of no delay. It constitutes a very strong reason why not a moment should be lost in getting the Trustees to work. Therefore, I most earnestly appeal to Churchmen, whether ministers or laymen, to lay aside every feeling of disunion, and set themselves to work with the existing machinery to the laborious task before them. Although I sympathise in a great measure with those who disapprove of what has been done, I cannot blind myself to the fact that disunion, obstruction and delay, can only be productive of great and irreparable mischief to the temporal interests of the Church and the spiritual welfare of the people. I cannot but believe that those who look singly to the glory of God, and the foundation of His Church, will agree to join heartily in putting an end as speedily as possible to the miserable state of disorganization under which the church at Canterbury has hitherto suffered. I am, Sir, Your obedient servant, Churchman. lyttelton, Jan. 29, 1555. To the Editor of the Lyttelton Times. Sir, —It appears from a letter of my friend Sir. Spowers published in your paper last Saturday that he had heard that four of the clergy, and of whom I was one, had resigned their seats as Church Trustees. I wish to state that he has been misinformed as far as I am concerned. Such a resignation could hardly be made by an officiating minister without "first resigning his licence to officiate, a thing which I have no intention of. doing: and even if this could be done, I see no reason, from anything that has happened, why I should shut "myself out from the power of taking my seat again as a Church Trustee at soire future time. I certainly was exceedingly sorry that we were not allowed to carry the resolution proposed by Captain Simeon., The only difficulties seemed to be that, the parishes having been once marked out, they could not be altered without consent of the Bishop, and that after the nominations had been made at Christchurchand Governor's Bay it-would not do to stop the elections. The first difficulty was really of no consequence, because the informality of the proceedings of tht Trustees had been so great, that no fault could have been found with a revision of the Bye-laws, and I cannot believe that under all the circumstances the second difficulty would have proved of very serious importance. If Captain Simeon's resolution had been carried, the Trustees would doubtless have passed, after due deliberation, such Byelaws as would have been satisfactory to the majority, and they would not have been obliged, ' as is now the case, to put off the consideration of a better division of the Settlement till- that indefinite period when a Bishop will come amongst us. Such a result would probably have checked that system of hasty decisions which has already done so much 'harm, and ■wmch, I am sorry to say, does not seem to have ceased yet (witness the last resolution carried at the conclusion of the meeting on Thursday). It is a very serious production. In case the incumbent is refractory, it gives power to th«* chairman (>f the Board to appoint some person to supply his place in conducting the election of -trustees. Press of business may hinder the said authorized person from being in attendance or taking any p.ut in the elections. It will still go forward somehow or other and come to a happy conclusion. If elections can struggle through under such difficult circumstances, why might they not do so when incumbents take no part in them ? But there are graver evils in such a resolution, and it was on account of these evils that I protested against it, and Degged the Trustees not to sanction it hurelyinsuch si case we might wait till the difficulties arose, and not pass' a resolution of this kind after two or three minutes' notice. I deeply'rej.'rsi on many accounts the result or last Ihursday's meeting, though I am indis- . posed to take any stronger measures in consequence than inferring mv dissent, and abstaining for the present from any interference in the proceedings. I am your obedient servant, G". CoiTJEIULIi. hyttolion, Jannary 29th, 1855.