Let us now turn to the other main question then occupying the attention of the settlers—the relation subsisting between the Canterbury Association and the settlers themselves. In the previous year, the Association had promoted a Bill, which amongst other things, authorised the Association to appoint a local Committee to administer the affairs of the settlement. This measure was passed by the British Parliament, but it was resented by the settlers, who demanded that the local Council should be elective. In effect they said to the Association: “You undertook to found a settlement, not to continue to govern it; give us now the management of our own affairs.” Complaints, too, were made of the conflict of authority between the Association and the Home Government; also that the Association did not fulfil its promise to publish detailed accounts. (This referred to the London accounts, as Mr. Godley was always careful to give every possible explanation of the expenditure in the colony.) That these complaints were not much louder was entirely due to the loyalty of Mr. Godley to the Association, and to his own good judgment, and tact. The malcontents were led by Mr. Thomas Cholmondeley, who, in February, 1852, published an open letter to Mr. Godley, criticising the Association. The letter was, in some respects, unfair, but as indicating the strong feeling prevalent at the time among a section at least of the community, the following passage may be quoted:—
“There was once on a time a certain philanthropist who by making emigration his hobby, thereby became better acquainted with the subject than the majority of his neighbours; one of them, John, by name, was desirous of emigrating to some foreign land, in order to better his condition. Our philanthropist proceeded to enlighten this man as to the best means of doing so. ‘My good friend,’ said he, ‘there is a certain savage land which is sometimes called Barataria, because it is governed from a distance, and in a most unconstitutional
