CORRESPONDENCE.

Lyttelton Times, Volume V, Issue 268, 26 May 1855, Page 4

CORRESPONDENCE.

To the Editor of the Lyttelton Times. Sir, —Having but few books to refer to in this place, I am, like most of us, compelled to rely upon recollections of former study. However, therefore, I may venture to enunciate principles, I can but feebly illustrate them by reference to authorities.

Looking over my thinly supplied book shelves after writing my last letter, I took down one book of the highest authority on the principles of the English constitution, I mean, De Lolme: and I referred to its pages with some curiosity to see how so intelligent and observant a writer had dealt with the question of " Ministerial Responsibility." It must be recollected that the doctrine of the " ins" and the " outs" had by no means attained, about the year 1770, when De Lolme wrote, its present complete developement. The influence of the Crown in the government of the country was much larger and more direct then, than it is now, or probably ever will be again. Accordingly we find that De Lolme whilst passing over the present fashionable working of Ministerial Responsibility treats forcibly and vividly the very point which it was the object of ray last letter to bring before your readers. His remarks are so well worthy of attentive perusal, that I will quote them at length. After attending to the various laws which directly control the power of tiie Crown, the writer proceeds thus : —

" But these laws which limit the king's authority, would nut, of themselves,have been sufficient ; as they are, after all, only intellectual barriers, which it is possible that tlie kinsr rniglit not at all times respect; as the check which the Commons have on his proceedings by a refusal of subsidies, affects 100 much of the whole siale, to be exerted on every particular abuse of his power ; and lastly, as even the means mighi in some degree he eluded, either by breaking the promises which procure subsidies, or by applying them to uses different from those for which they were appointed, the constitution has besides supplied the Commons with a means of immediate opposition to the misconduct of Government, a right to impeach the ministers. " It is true, the king himself cannot be arraigned before judges; because, if there nune any that could pass sentence upon him, it wcrlld be they, and not he, who must finally possess the executive power; but, on the other hand, the king cannot act whhout ministers; it is therefore these ministers, that is, these indispensible instruments whom they attack.

" If, for example, the public money has been employed in a. wanner contrary to the declared intention of those who granted it, an impeachment may be brought against those who had the management of it. If any abuse of power is committed, or in general anything dour contrary to the public weal, they prosecute those who

have been either the instruments, or the advisers, of the measure. [[Note: It was upon these principles that the Commons in the beginning of this century, impeached the Earl of Oxford, who had advised the Treaty of Partition, ami the Lord Chancellor Somers, who had affixed the great seal to it.]

" But who shall be the judges to decide in such a cause? What tribunal will flatter itself that it can give an impartial decision, when it shall see presented at its bar the Government itself as the accused, and the representatives of the people as the accusers ?

" It is before the House of Peers that the law has directed the Commons to carry their accusation, that is, before judges whose dignity, on the one hand, renders them independent, and who, on the other, have a great houour to support in that awful function where they have all the nation for spectators of their conduct.

" When the impeachment is brought to the Lords, they commonly order the person accused to be imprisoned. On the day appointed, the deputies of the House of Commons, with the person impeached, make their appearance ; the impeachment is read in his presence; counsel are allowed him, as well as time, to prepare for his defence; and at the expiration of this term, the trial goes on from day to day, with open doors, and everything is communicated in print to the public.

"But whatever advantages the law grants to the person impeached for his justification, it is from the intrinsic merits of his conduct that he must draw his arguments and proofs. It would be of no service to him, in order to justify a criminal conduct, to alledge the commands of the sovereign ; or, pleading guilty with respect to the measures imputed to him, to produce the royal pardon. It is against the administration itself that the impeachment is carried on ; it should therefore by no means interfere; the king can neither stop nor suspend its course, but is forced to behold, as an inactive spectator, the discovery of the share which he may himself have had in the illegal proceedings of his servants, and to hear his own sentence in the condemnation of his ministers.

"An admirable expedient! which, by removing and punishing corrupt ministers affords an immediate remedy for the evils of the state, and strongly marks out the bounds within which power ought to be confined ; which takes away the scandal of guilt and authority united, and calms the people by a great and awful act of justice ; an expedient, in that respect especially, so highly useful, that it is to the want of the like, that Madiiavel attributes the ruin of his republic."

This then seems to be the " root of the matter." This is real responsible government. The safeguard of the Constitution lies in the power to bring an offending minister to the scaffold. And the " ins " and the "outs" theory, is as like to this as the shadow of a man on the wall is to the man himself, not valueless indeed, for it shews that the man is there.

But is there anything at all like this in the Constitutions of colonies ? If a Colonial Treasurer embezzled monies he could no doubt be tried. But if he spent money under the warrant of the Governor, without law, will any lawyer tell me whether the taxpayers by their representatives can obtain justice? The Governor may himself be tried, but only in England. But the Colonial ministers, can they be tried in the Colony? who is to be prosecutor ? what is to be the Court r what is the "admirable expedient" which won the admiration of the French politician.

I am told, " Well, but Responsible Government has been tried in colonies and has succeeded admirably." I admit it. It is a fashion. A large bonnet was once the fashion, but it was very liable to be blown off in a squall. Let us only see what is the real worth of what we are struggling for, and give things their true names. Responsible Government by sufferance, that, as yet, has been the limit of our ambition.

I am, Sir, yours, Bee. CONNPJL CoUNSELTiOR Falkland Farm, Maj- 24th, 1855.

To the Editor of the Lyttelton Times. Sir, —The Provincial Council has devoted so much time to the consideration of the price and terms of sale of the Waste Lands in this Province, that T can scarcely hope to obtain a close attention to what is taking place in the arrangements relating to Pasturage.

The regulationsfput forth by the late Executive Council are well known ; they proposed chiefly two things, Ist. An equalization of the pastoral rents in the Province; 2nd. An amended tenure of the runs. Had the general government been satisfied with appropriating one-half of our land fund, instead of confiscating the whole, the Province would by this arrangement have received eight or nine hundred pounds less per annum, while the stock owners, within the block, would have been relieved from the unjust imposition of paying for their runs three times as much as is paid in any other part of New Zealand, and this too under circumstances which the Commissioner of Grown Lands, in his evidence before the Council, declared to give very slight, or no advantages over those out of the block.

The plan proposed by the late Government was met by an amendment of Mr. Joseph Brittan's, to the effect that the terms of the Canterbury Association should be continued without alteration. This amendment was lost by a considerable majority.

A compromise was then proposed by Mr. Bray, which while relieving the run holder from the excessive burdens to which he is at present subject, would at the same time leave a considerably larger balance in ihe Provincial Treasury. This plan provides that the holder of a run shall pay a license fee for the first 5,000 acres of £5 per annum, and for every additional 1,000 acres £1 per annum, also in addition a poll-tax upon sheep and cattle to be levied at the rate of one penny per head for all sheep, and sixpence per head for larger cattle.

Now let us consider the advantages to the Province arising from this proposal ; and first, let us see what revenue we are to expect under the present terms. We may take the average date of the runs to be that they are in the 4th year from the time at which they were applied for : —thus, 20,000 acres pay a rental of £66 and a few shillings; ordinarily the half of tins or £33 would be retained in the Province ; under present arrangements the whole is paid to the General Government, and is so much capital lost to the Province. The Provincial Treasury, therefore, gets nil.

According to Mr. Bray's plan there is for 20,000 acres a license fee of £20 0 0 5,000 sheep at Id per head £20 ]6 8

Total_£4o 16 8 Of the license fee one fourth, of £o, is paid to the New Zealand Company, and the remainder or £\5 will be paid to the General Treasury. But the whole of the assessment amounting to £20 16s. B'l. is paid to the Provincial chest, being raised by a Provincial Ordinance, thus, by Mr. Bray's plan the Provincial Treasury gains for every run of 20,000 acres the sum of £20 16s dl, in addition, as the calculation shews,an amount of upwards of £25 for each run of 20,000 acres is retained as capital in the Province ; no slight advantage in a young country to which labour is rapidly flocking, and where equivalent capital is required to employ that labour.

This proposal had, at least, the advantage of reason on its side, and was parallel in its sc >pc to the arguments adduced by Mr. Joseph Brittan, in favour of paving £2 per acre instead of £3 for the purchase of waste lands, viz. that it would prevent the of capital from the provinc;. He did not, however, though professing an entire absence of prejudice, support this ; but fell back to demand " bis pound of flesh" and the " bond" which Mr. Bray had clearly shown could not now be fulfilled by the Association on their side, because they had not fulfilled their oontraotNvith the English Government, by the payment to the crown of 10s. per acre for all land sold.

Notwithstanding these professions, the feeling produced on the tuiuds of those members of the Council, who were not entirely aciinir as Mr. Brittnn's allies, was thai.it was the intention of.the Government to treat the stock owners unfairly, and by carrying Mr. Bray's proposal they pronounced their judgment upon the case.

The Government, never adduced any reason for charging; three times the price upon the runs within the Block that is paid in any other purl

of New Zealand ; they contented themselves with misrepresenting the effect of Mr. Bray's amendment, and when that was carried, they, in a very childish and very amusing manner, sat pettishly still, and would take no further part in the discussion, with one significant exception, when a proposal was made to compel a proportionate amount of stock to be kept upon runs of less than 1,000 acres ; this broke through Mr. Brittan's reserve, and he spoke against it. The preemptive right over the whole run was negatived by the stock owners themselves ; so anxious were they to avoid even the appearance of an attempt to exclude ,the agriculturalist, though the entire aim of that right was to prevent one run holder from appropriating choice parts of his neighbour's run, and thus producing an injury not likely to arise from the ralistHad the Government succeeded in fixing the excessive rent which they attempted, or had. they in any other way oppressed the stock owners, the grievance would have been only a temporary one, for they rely upon a sense of "the justice of their cause, which no party attempts to set one class against another will succeed in overthrowing. I am, sir, Your obedient servant, Platfaie. Christchurch, May 21st, 1855. To the Editor of the Lyttelton Times. Sik, —Such of your readers as during the late withdrawal of the Healhcote Ferry Punt, may have had occasion to pass along the Bridlepath under the hills, will, I think agree that iMr. Hamilton's letter in the Lytteltou Times last week by no means exaggerates the dangers of a journey between Port and the Plains, when so ordinary a casualty drives them to so dire an alternative, and that, moreover, Mr. Hamilton is entitled to the thanks of the community for having by your means taken the trouble to set the matter before the public. Since the date of that letter, substantial culverts have been placet! where wanted, and after years of grumbling the neighbourhood are highly delighted. 1 wish, however, to call attention- to the fact that the line of road is not yet open, and that all that has been done may at any time, and without notice, be rendered useless by 3 or 4 chains of fencing across the present trespassing track between the road and the river. The swampy portion, about 8 chains long, between the Eev. W. Willock's farm, and the bridge, still requires the water to be let off that is now stagnant in the ditches on either side. This may be done, the Provincial Engineer tells me, for something under £40, and this alone would make the Bridle road merit its name, and there would lie a line for horsemen in more direct communication with the Bridle-path than the Siumier road, with no ferry to wait or pay for. The interest of my neighbourhood in this matter is certainly our own access to Christchurch, and same may perhaps be disposed to ask why we do not ourselves set to work, but I contend we have no more right to make a road wuitsh directly it is open nine in ten horsemen will use, than the inhabitants of Lytteltou to take gratis a contract on the Sunnier road, I wish to urge that this is no ordinary accommodation road, but the only means of getting to Christchurch without the inconveniences of a ferry; that slock to the amount of several hundred pounds have been, to my own knowledge, frequently in jeopardy, one mare being actually lost; that £100 was voted last session for this very line in answer to a petition very generally signed, and lastly, that granting the expediency op constructing the proposed line with a new bridge over the Heatheote, the present will, iv all probability, be the road for some time to come. I am, Sir, Your obedient servant, Alexander Lean, Rivorlaw, May 21, ISSS.