suggesting that the Association was trying to extend its boundaries at the expense of Nelson. No intention of the kind had been indicated in any of the official correspondence, and the suggestion was distinctly repudiated by a public meeting referred to later, but there probably was a desire—and a reasonable one—that the whole of the Canterbury Plains, for which Lyttelton was the natural outlet, should be controlled from the same centre. Any other arrangement must, in the nature of things, have proved vexatious to both provinces and harassing to the settlers. The disputed territory, belonging nominally to Nelson, was not then settled, except by a few unlicensed squatters.
Other points were raised, such as the justice or injustice of compelling settlers who might not be members of the Church of England to contribute £1 per acre of the purchase money of their land to the religious and educational objects of that Church. The personal friction between Sir George Grey and Mr. Godley was reflected from this time onwards in the attitude of the former towards the Canterbury Settlement.
Mr. Godley realised that the settlers were too fully occupied by their own affairs lo give much attention to general politics, but the occasion was too important to be passed over, and he organised public meetings at Christchurch and Lyttelton on August 14, presiding himself over the gathering at the Port.
The speech made by Mr. Godley on that occasion throws some additional light upon his relations with the Governor:— “I entirely agree with Sir George Grey in his disapproval of colonising associations, whether they be composed of land speculators or of amateurs,” “I believe that their existence and functions are altogether repugnant to sound theory, and almost necessarily productive of great practical evils. Yet I have been an active promoter of the Canterbury Association, and I now stand here to defend it on this ground
