Original Correspondence.

Lake Wakatip Mail, Volume II, Issue 64, 9 December 1863, Page 6

Original Correspondence.

THE TIMES CORRESPONDENT. To the Editor of the Lakk Wakatip Mail. Sir, —I see the Times correspondent has done me the honor of replying to my " gro>s personal attack," as he terms it—a phrase which must be amusing enough to those accustomed to glance over his own lucubrations; and as it is seldom that I have it in my power to run a tilt with the aristocracy of talent, I am provoked to trouble you again with a few words. The said communication is supposed, I should imagine, to be an answer to my former letter, but I am constrained to confess I see but little in it to deserve that title. He "asserts the report to be correct." What report ? If I mistake not, nothing but a general cross-table conversation was sent to town concerning an absent gentleman, and ending with the remarks derogatory to him—nothing of the business transacted was reported, and in that lies tho unfortunate mistake of the Times correspondent. His object is plain enough to all concerned, and another mud-pie has since been thrown at the same person from the same quarter, in the guise of u local paragraph in the paper he has "the honor to represent," of the 25th ult. Does he think such a flimsy and contemptible artifice, so worthy of the brain that conceived it, is sufficient to disguise the place from which such a petty piece of malignity emanated? " Our own" must surely measure other men's capacity by his own standard. As to the charge of bribery and trickery, which he so pertinaciously asserts, I shall not go over the ground again, but leave it to those present at the election to decide. I may remark, however, that his letters are, as stated by me, written at the Arrow, though dated from Quecnstown—a little piece of literary fraud worthy of notice. It is rather amusing to notice the terms "anonymous slang" ana "nameless correspondent" made use of by " our own," and then, just below, to see—not the signature of that gentleman, as one would suppose—but merely his title, which is about as anonymous as my own initials, which seem to annoy him so much ; and besides that, as it appears from the editorial note, his experience of newspaper matters is so extensive, or his politeness so engaging, that he does not think it necessary to enclose his name confidentially to the editor. By the bye, my initials seem to have caused him considerable uneasiness, which is transferred to myself when I notice his profosal to alter it to <4 P. 8." The reason for this am at a loss to comprehend. Docs it mean Perfert Brick, or Paul Bedford P At last one of my friends suggested Pale Brandy, which solutinn I am fain to accept, for want of a better. Judging from the general bar tone of "Our own's" letters, I was struck with the applicability of this idea, as it, moreover, suggests a parody on Pope's line, which, though rather spiteful, is sufficiently appropriate:— u Flow, H n, flow, like thine inspirer, beer ! " But I have another bone to pick with the Times u own," and then I will willingly wash my hands of him. I allude to a letter which has appeared since his unfortunate Hospital mistake, touching the tea-meeting for the benefit of the Church of England, which was on the tapis at the time he wrote. He draws a comparison between the two churches in the highest degree favorable to the Catholics, which in itself is pretty modest, considering he is a Catholic himself. I have no wish to say anything of that numerous and repected body, except perhaps that they might certainly have had a better eulogist; but I think his statements relating to the Church of England verv uncalled for, unfair and ungentlemanly—but that is natural, and to be expected. Th ere has been as much money subscribed by the one church as the other; but the English church being built first, when labor aijd material were both very high, accounts for its presenting an appearance certainly second to the Catholic building, to which, by the bye, a number of Protestants subscribed. A tea-meeting has always been held a proper means of raising funds for such a purpose, and the Times correepondent if the

first I have heard to stigmatize it as unfair. As for " fanaticism," there cannot be a better refutation of that charge than tho fact that—to their credit be it stated—a number of gentlemen and ladies of a different creed did their utmost to secure the success of the tea-meeting. Honor to them for their noble and disinterested efforts—honor to them for their generous and efficient assistance—a lino of conduct which I can readily believe is incomprehensible to the Times correspondent. It is men like this, Sir, that are productive of so much injury to a small community; and who, with aspirations above their native slough, are not content to remain in that insignificant station in which a discerning and beneficent Providence hns placed them, but, like Erostratus, pant for notoriety, even if it be an unenviable one ; and to attain their ends take advantage of the first respectable position they have occupied in life, and into which accident has pitchforked them, to foment local jealousies, split asunder, by their wretched and narrow-minded bigotry, the ties of friendship, charity and goodwill—set creed against creed, friend ngainst friend, and class against class —determined to win a name, even if it should only be worthy of being inscribed in a moral Newgate Calendar. Queenstown, Dec. 3,1863. P. D.

To the Editor of the Lake Wakatip Mail. Sir—ln your Saturday's issue I notice a letter from Mr W. C. Mirfin, chairman of tho lato public meeting held in this township, commenting on the remarks made by t..e Otago Witness of the 27th ult., with reference to the conduct of said meeting in connection with the monster Petition, for tho transfer of the Government of the goldfields from this Province to that of Auckland.

As you have given space in your columns to his complaint perhaps I may be allowed space also for briefly alluding thereto. Mr Mirfin quotes the Witness of above date, which says " every speaker who attempted to address the meeting against the Petition was immediately silenced by a well directed volley of gro ins and hi-ses," and proceeds to say " that a statement more at variance with the facts was never published, as in his seven years' experience on the mines, he never saw or attended a more orderly meeting." I deny the correctness of this statement, that the meeting was a most orderly one for several reasons. I maintain that from the time the first speaker concluded his speech there was not one of the opponents of the Petition who obtained anything like a fair hearing ; that there were persons present who had intended to address the meeting in terms condemnatory of the prayer of the Petition, who seeing the utter hopelessness ot obtaining a hearing, declined to attempt it; that the small room in which the meoting was held was nearly filled before the commencement of the proceedings by supporters of the Petition, and that the voice ot its opponents was by no means adequately represented thero. But, Sir, Ido not place my ipse dixit alone as one of that meeting in proof of the truth of the Witness's remarks, and in contradistinction to that of your correspondent's. From your own columns, irrespective of any authority, I consider your contemporary was perfectly justified in basing the remarks in question. Your report speaks of the great uprour, "scene of the wildest confusion, groans ana hisses," which raged when the opponents of the Petition attempted to enforce their views, the pathetic appeals of the chairman from time to time to obtain order. " Gentlemen, gentlemen," you report him beseeching the meeting, "do not let us acquire as bad a reputation for rowdyism as the Queenstown folks." This then is the " most orderly meeting" the worthy chairman " ever saw." It were needless Sir, further to occupy your space, I om indeed constrained to believe after such an asservation that he has discovered since the meeting a new Lethe stream, and drank deeply, indiscreetly of the waters of oblivion. Your most obedient servant, J. G. Anderson. Arthur's Point, Dec. 7th, 1863.

[There seems to be rather a strong feeling existing en this subject. On reading our correspondent's letter wo were inclined to believe that an error had occurred in the report of the meeting; but on referrring thereto, we find that the expressions lie quotes, instead of being in a mass, or directed to one side, they are sprinkled generally over the whole, and as much from one side as the other, being merely an expression of feeling on the various resolutions submitted, and taking place generally at the close of, and not during a speech. From our personal knowledge, we can partly verify the letter of Mr Mirfin. As to the size of the room, whatever blame was due, must be cast on the shoulders of the conveners of the meeting—those against the Petition.—Ed. IK. M.~\