which was the landing place for goods transhipped from Lyttelton.
Another centre was formed by the Land Office on the site of the present Municipal Buildings, also on the river, and nearby in Worcester Street, Dr. Barker, to whom we are indebted for a fine collection of early photographs, pitched his tent. The accidental grouping of settlement round these two centres was typical of the time. The city had certainly been planned—on paper—and there were tracks cut to indicate the lines of some of the streets; apart from this, the land was a waste of sand, fern and scrub, crossed by a waterlogged gully. He would have been a prophet indeed who could have foretold where the main channels of commerce would be established.
There was at that time some confusion between the names of Christchurch and Lyttelton. The Association had chosen the name of Christchurch for its capital city, but the Colonists’ Society in London had carried a resolution asking that the capital should be called Lyttelton, to which the Association had somewhat reluctantly consented. Mr. Godley had never acquiesced in the change, and the names remained on the maps as we know them to-day. The confusion of names was only temporary, and as the old names were ultimately retained, it need not be further referred to.
But the far more important question had to be decided whether the capital city should be at the port or on the plains. The Committee of the Canterbury Association in London favoured the port as the seat of the capital, but left the decision to the settlers. The following is an extract from the despatch to Mr. Godley dated London, September 7, 1850 (Canterbury Papers, p. 200):—
“By the terms of purchase the first body of colonists are entitled to half-acre allotments in the capital, or to quarter-acre allotments in other towns, You will, therefore, be under the necessity of determining the site
