Original Correspondence.

New Zealander, Volume 3, Issue 198, 22 April 1848, Page 2

Original Correspondence.

To the Editor of the Neto Zealandcr. Sir,— As, happily, New Plymouth may hare a :loser connexion with the Capital, your excellent journal will probably be open to subjects affecting our local interests, [in which belief I beg the insertion of the (following remarks on a subject of considerable importance. In July last, the Comet arrived here with a cargo of jattle. The weather being fine, the boats discharged ber in half a day ; and twenty hours after dropping anchor, she sailed on her return to Sydney : yet it is reported that the master of this vessel gives an unfavourable account of the Roadstead. Now, if this be true, it would almost appear that Capt. Cork, irritated ay a dispute ai to the quality of the stock, which, jaused a reduction in the price he claimed, has in relation thus attempted to frighten other ships from the market. From the apathetic indifference shown here to most subjects unconnected with the cultivation of :he sail, an interested mil- statement like this, is lever noticed ; although to such, is cbiefly owing the misconception which prevails respecting this Roadstead. To persons resident here who have paid attention to ;be subject, it is notorious that there are but few days in the year, probably not 60, when a ve>sel could not lischarge with perfect safety and pood despatch. The vinds which chiefly raise a sea and cavie a surf, blow :iom north to north-west, but they occur so unfreluently, that it appears by an accurate register, they lave prevailed only 6j days in a period of 3 years : i vessel has always ample warning of their approach, md they are soon followed by a touth-west breeze with smooth water. The Cuitoms' records show that 230 ihips, of the burthen of 20,732 tons, have visited the Roadstead, of which 197 have discharged or loaded lere; but neither in the great boating work which his has caused, nor in whaling or fishing, has there

licen a single loss of life since the foundation of the Settlement ; and if the simple fact was generally known, that of these 230 vessels, but 1 ship and 12* anchors had been lost in seven years, all nautical authorities would probably admit, that as a "Roadstead/ the place merits an excellent character ; for it must be distinctly noted thut the loss of the vessel, end other of these accidents, were such as would not occur again now that seven year's experience has given a thorough knowledge of the weather. It h woithy of rem.uk, that few of these anchors weie lost thiough " stress of we.-thcr,"— the chain has generally parted from the mere strain of weighing, the bottom for the most part being foul, and no vessel should anchor here without bending a good, strong, stout " buoy-rope." Musters of vessels coming to New Plymouth, may .sa ely rely upon this : they may incur some trouble, for it is possible that the ship may have to " BWnd out" before her cargo is discharged ; hut, on the other hand, they will probably meet with quick despatch, and wit'i communication, there vnll be less chance of actual danger to the ship, than would be incurred in entering many excellent harbours. The best measures for the improvement of this Roadstead, and increasing its facilities for shipping, would be these— Ist. Laying; down Moorines.-] 2nd. Improving the Boat Establishment. 3rd. Licensing the Acting Pilot. First.— As reeaids fine weather and the actual safety of the hJnp, this Roadstead is second to none ; but from the nature of the anchorage, chiefly send over rocks, any \Chscl. save a small coaster, i- Lable to lose an anchor in weighing : moorings as removing all such risk, enabling ships eithe. to htng out <i $nle, or to slip at any moment of its duration, would besignally useful. They would have to be annual. y examined, to accomplish which, perhaps the most effectual plan would be to build a " lump" or " lighter," e\pres6sy for the service ; or they mis;ht be raised by the steamer. By an excellent " plan for moorings," suggested by the Pilot, a set to hold ships of 500 tons (using certain parts of the original set), could be laid down for about £ls<) : the "lighter," to be built here, and which might be useful in landing cattle, would probably cost £200. A set of light mooiings. laid in shore for coasters, would bi extremely useful ; this, however, would be a measure of secondary importance. Second. — The great deficiency in the ho«t establishment is a good boats' crew. Except the coxswain, there are na regular men, and when a ship anives, as the best hands are frequently engaged elsewhere, their places are supplied by any motley crew which the coxswain may succeed in pies-in^. It has been proposed that ihe armed police should man the boats : it is a du*y which 1 think they would not willingly p<>rfonn — hsy ac better employed in road- making or bridge-bui'ding — and they aiv not fit for a service which requires good rowers and men handy in d boat. The diffeience which a good crew makes in the despatch a vessel meets with, is greater tht.n would he supposed, and six of the best men, to keep a look out and pei form all Government work, could be secured for 10s. or 12s. per week. Third.— A stronger captain, coming here and finding the Pilot without a license, would probably suppose, eiher that the Authorities considered a Pilot unnecessary, or that the peison so acting was not duly qualified ; consequently, he might refuse to give him charge of the ship : owing to tills the Madras lost a valuable chain and anchor, and the Guide (brig), runming from the place in a noithwester, instead of merely standing out for a few hours, was totally wrecked neai Nelson. These accidents not only caused a serious loss of property, but were most injurious in bringing the place unduly into bad repute. The improvements here suggested, would entail an outlay of about ,£5OO, with an annual expenditure of nearly ,£2OO. This may appenr a large hum, but as it it acknowledged, that if New Plymouth possessed a harbour it would be superior in natural advantages to any other Settlement •, the Government can estimate the importance of doing that, which at no enormous cost, would in some measure supply the deficiency of a harbour.^ For vessels of 40 to CO tons, the Waitara River could be made a good harbour : even now without nwks or buoys, and comparatively little known, ca-wtcrs enter to rent, there is 10 to 12 feet on the foai at high water, a great depth inside for two miles up ; and Uciliti^s exist for the construction of wharves and quays. Could the noble harbour of Auckland be combined with the fertile .plains of Taranaki, the result would be a site— 'position and climnte considered — perhaps unequalled in the colonies ; but in New Zealand, it appenrs impossible to find a first rate port, combined with a district yrc-eminmt for fertility and other agricultural advantages, Taranaki, however, in the latter ie^pect has no rival, whilst it must be evident that in possessing a safe roadstead foi large ships, and a river haffoour for small vesstls, it is superior in natural facilities for shipping, to many p aces which enjoy a very considerable and important tiade. I have the honor to be, Sir, Your most obedient servant, Chas. Hurstuousk, Jun. ■* Of this number, one was lost by the chafing of a hempen cable ; one by a vessel whose cable was but little stronger than a timber chain ; and another by the Madras — an accident attributable to her cuptam'i refusal to take the acting pilot. f Heavy moorings were laid down by the Company in 1842, which were of the greatest service for two jeais; but never being raised for examination, they got out of order, and as the Theresa was lying at them in March, 18 14, a shackle parted in the night, when the ship was in home danger from drifting on shore. X It is possible to make a fine deep water harbour hereby lUnninga " breakwater" from shore to the Middle Sugar Loaf Island. The length of the work would be about 5 furlongs { the depth of water about 4f fathoms. The area of " close" haibour would be about 30 acres, but with the wind in the usual quarter, from west to south-west, the extent would be much greater ; there is abundance of material at hand in rock and beacb stone. New Plymouth, March 31, 1848. [We shall always be most happy to receive communications from the interesting settlement of New Plymouth, in advocacy ot whose claims we shall not fail to render every assistance m our power. We are duly senbible of the complimentary testimony awarded by our Correspondent to "the noble harbour of Auckland," but if our correspondent will refer to the speech of Governor Grey on the " Fencing Bill" he will perceive that Auckland possesses claims to agrestial excellence no way inferior to the vaunted fertility of " the plains of Taranaki."— His Excellency having declared, that so luxuriant was the soil of this isthmus it would be a pity to appropriate that which was so admirably adapted for garden purposes to the less advantageous object of pasture.— Ed,]

To the Editor of the New Zealandcr. Sir,-— There are so % ne remarks in your paper o March 18, respecting Missionaues, that I appeal t< yon as a man of justice to correct. You say," the Mission has lost caste by these pur chases,' I—that1 — that " the Mission lius been ungratefully treated by the Government." You speak of the " ill-timed resi-tancc of the Mm nonaries'' to the colonization of the country; anc of their systematic discoiutesy : mid obseive thai " they feel galled at finding ;>o much of their milucncc and power departing from them." You may perhaps have in your thoughts some one or two cases in winch such charge* could be substanstiated. In every large body there are always some slranse characters. 01 these unfortunate land claims law no defender. They have indeed materially injured the character of the body Still every man that candidly examines the question, will i am sitisfiei, find thas the great majority have nn interest in such que«tiontt that they have never been heretofore been charged will ; such discourtesy ; that they warmly supported the first foundera of this colony ; and that no instance can be adduced of their having evinced that unworthy chagrin that you si-em so ready to impute to them. I remain, Sir, your obedient servant, A. Missionary. [It is almost unnecessary to state, that our sole object has been to lay an nnpaitial statement of a disputed and much mystified question before the world. Happening likewise to be tiee from a!l biussing connexions and association*-, cilher with (•ovciuiuentor with the Mission, we fpel conscious of having in.bibed no secret spirit ol paiii/int-hip towards either side, One of the iv.uesaions of which the writer beems te complain, that " the Mission lua lost caste by thes; puichdsej,," is aitei wards substantiated by hiimelf, when he says that " they have indeed materially injured the chaiacter of the body." As to the " ill-timed rciibtance ot the Missionaries to the colonization of the country, " the writer hurs;lf inu^t know that such complaint was at one time almost universal in the colony. It may certain'y be uiged in answer, that frequency of assertion is no sulhcient proof ol truth. As to their having " never bsen heretolore charged with such di couttesy," the charge, just or unjusc, is notorious; and " one or twocaies" in suppoit ol it arj allo.ved by our correspondent in a preceding sentence of his letter. But we have been long aware of the danger, on any subject, of tiying to eti-ur a middle course ; anything but thorough-going partisanship i> certain to bung down animailveisioiia noin bath parties concerned. Ed. N. Z ]

To the Editor of the- New ZuJandjr. Sir, — la the same spirit of Christian charity and candour, from the same motive that dsuUttd my last, —a lovs of truth,— and w.lhout the leabt " acerbity," or disposition to be profane, I beg to olFer a tew remarks on Mr. O'Reily's letter contained in your No. of the 12tli instant; whicli commences with a giave charge against me for " acerbity oi feeling and profaneness of language." How far the charge is supposed by fact, y>ur readers will judge. lam sure I shall be fully acquitted by them Mr. O'Reily is evidently diseased with the plain unsophisticated scriptural arguments contained m my last, and it would suit his purpose to say hard words, aud us j insulting language, hy way of throwing dust in the eyes of your leaders, les>t they should discern the spots and blemishes, the gioss idolatries, the souldestroying" heiesies, and unnnptural assumptions of the Church of Rome ; which 1 have pointed out, and from which neither lumbclf, nor the long hbt of Fathers he quotes, can clear it, His charge ol acerbity, lam certain will recoil on himielf, for his last production presents nuffici nt e\idence of the sourness or temper in which he has indulged, aud is a much better likeness of tliat viviparous creature of whidi he speaks, t.ian <jny thing lhave wiitten can famish. lit; hlso charges me with " protaneness of language," for the u c of which he very graciously UMideis me absolution without confession. As lam vi conscious of guiit, I make no confession, and have no pardon to usk from Mr. O'Reily. lie may call (in uuscriptural doctrines aud absurd pracices of the Church of Rome, " sacred mysteries, where angels feur to tread," if he pleases, and he may raise the ciy of profanity, when Scripture and common sense are objected to them ; but what then? A Maoii chief wi 1 whaka tapu a spot of land, and if you stray upon it, will charge jou with a breach of his sacred ntcngn, and demand utu ; but who feels that lie has committed any breach save that of trampling on a heathen rite ? A Romish priest may pretend to change the water into God, simply by saying, " Hoc esl emm C3rpzis7neum," and when he has said it, fall down and adoie ihe god of his own creating, and call on his people to do die same. And when you wonder at his piehumption, are shocked at hio pretensions, and pity those who are credulous enough to believe him, — he iruy call you profane. But who feels himself guilty of piofanity for this ? I confess that Ido not. I am also certain that Holy Angeli never mingle with such scenes ; not because too sacred for them, but becauss of the shocking idolatry, and utter disregard ot the word of God, Avhich are connected with them. After Mr. O'Reily has granted absolution, he tells you that he "hopes to set his doctnncs m their majestic grandeur ttefore the eyes of the hincere, ''— let us see how tar he has realised his hopes. His first effort is to prove that our Lord appointed for his Church a visible head, and that Peter was the person on whom the dignity wa» conferred. That the Church bits an invisible head in Christ himself is fully granted, and hdS never been questioned by me, but as to an " appointed vicar or deputy to be visible head in his place," it is certain Christ made no such appointment, tor no such person was needed, unless we suppose the Saviour was unable to do the work himself, nor could any mere man discharge the duties of such an office. Christ could say, " where two or three are gathered together in my name, theie am lin the mid-.t of them," but no man can say this. The head of the Church must be able to communicate without intermission with every member of his body ; but can any mem creature maintain continual intercourse with the members of God's Church scattered over all the world ? He must first be invested with Divine attributes to qualify him for such an office. It is clear therefore that Christ appointed no such hem). The Scrip tuies contain nt such doctrine. Mr. O'Reily quotes the often controverted pasbage in Matthew wi, verses 18 and 19, and he tells you that the true interpretation of Cephas is lock and not a stone. But authorities that tar outweigh Mr O'lieily have decided again and again, that both Petros and Cephas signify not a rock but a stone, or fragment of rock. Granville Shftip in a short treatise entitled, V Remarks on an important text, (viz. Mat. xvi, 18,) which has long been perverted by the Church of Rome," &c, lias clearly brought out the meaning of this passage. He says, " whatever may have been the language in which the words were spoken, whether Chaldee or Syriac, yet in this point the Greek is our only authoi native instructor. "The first word " (in the passage) " Pcoos being a masculine noun, signifies merely a stone, and the secgml word Petra though

it is & feminine noun, cannot signify unvthin? of le>s magnitude or importiiicc, than a rock, or strong mountain of defence," He then goes on to shew that the word Pelros when applied figuratively to Peter, can represent only one true believer or faithful member of Clnist's Church, one out of the great multitude of true believers iuChiistwho, as figulative stones form altogether the glorious spiritual building of Christ's Church, and not the foundation on which that Church is built. And that Petra, the 10 k, is a title of dignity applicable only to God or to Christ, pointing out the re.il foundation of the Church of God. And .1 Ici.ned biblical critic, Ed. Leigh, Esq. in his Critica-Sacia, asserts that Pelros " doth always liymfij a stone, never a rock;" and hence D . Hopkins,, l\otest,int Bnhop of Vermont, says, " the cl sjst veision of the Greek in English would be, — Thou art a stone, and on this rock I will build my Church," — ml h« shews that to make the Greek and Latin accord with the comment of the Romish chuich an alteiatijn of the phraseology would be necessary. But a si m pip examination of the passage is all that is required to set it in its true light. Our Lord enquired of his disciples, ver. U, "whom do men say that I the Son or Man am ?"and after heaiing various opinions of the people, some of whom said ha was John, others Elias, and others Jeremiah, or one of the prophets; Jesus suid unto them, " But whom say ye that lam ?" l'oter answered and said, " Thou art Christ the Son of the limhit God," Jesus ai^wering said to him, " Blessed ait thou Simon Batjona because flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee but my Father who is in heaven. And I siy unto thoe, that tliou art I'eter, and upon this rouk 1 will build my chin cb, and the ga:es of hell shall not prevail against it." "Twill build my church upon this rock, upon whom ? not surely upon Peter, whom Christ in a few verses attei calls Satan, who he knew would ileny him with oaths and cuises and be for a time separated from his cause. Nor certainly upon Peter whom Paul withstood to the f'ce because he was to be blamed, (Gal. 2. Hi) for hiving countenanced erroneous doctrines, but upon Ins confession, that Jeaus Wiis the Christ, the annointed, tne Sun of the living God. If our Lord meant that Peter was the foundation agnnst which the gitesot hell should not prevail, then was his ptediction untru?, for against Peter the gates of hell did prevail, for a season at least when Sa'an induced him to deny his Lord, but against the true foundation, the rock of nges the gates of hell never have, and never will prevail. If Mr. OR. will consult the Fathers andinako them authority, then Chrysostom is agaim>t him on this passage, upon tl'is rock ; i. c. says he in his Homilies, " on the faith of hut to/ifession." Orgen and Hilary agree in this view or the passage. Nor does the I<H'> ver. " I will give to thee the keys," 6tf. convey to Peter any privilege that the other Apostles had not in common, save one, that was the privilege of first preaching the Gospel to thi« Jews and Gentiles. The keys were no " badge of the chief officer of the household" as asserted by Mr. OR. but a simple allusion to a Jewish custom in tho ceiemony of constituting a Rabbi or doctor ot the law, who on admission to o^ce had a key given to him as an emblem of his ability and duty to open the meaning of the law. and which he wore as a badge of his office. Our Lord by this figure natuially expressed the opening of the '' mysteries of the kingdom of heaven" by public teaching, and on Peter he conferred the pnvilege of opening these mysteries both to Jews and Gentiles, which he did ; to the Jews on the day of Pentecost, and to the Gentiles in the house of Cornelius. But no supremacy was given him over his brethern. He never held (he keys in reference to them. He did not open tl.e k.ngdom to one <f them. They were admitted by Christ himself. And the authority to "bind and loose" with regard to doctrine, worship, government, and discipline in the church, he confencd equally on all the Apostles. But says Mr. OR. it wa^ the " bark of Peter which Jesus entered in preference," what then? was the bark of Peter Ihe church of Rome ? *' To Peter he said, " Ftarnot, hencefoith tliou shall ca'ch men.' 1 Is it to be inferred from this that Peter alone was thus autho.ised ? were not all alike commissioned to pieach the Gospel, and gather souls into Christ's church ? He is "always mentioned as the hist and the leader,'' says Mr. OR. Not always; tee Gal. ii. 9, " And when James, Cephas, aad John,'' &c. ; Ist Cor. lii. 22, " Whether Paul, or Apostle, or Cephas," &c. " And Erasmus informs U 9 from Jerome, that the Apostles in the other Evangelists are not enumerated in the same order as they are in Matthew, lest any should imagine that Peter was pre-eminent, because his uame is first mentioned." Peihaps, Mr. OR. overlooked these passages, " To him is given the charge lint he confirm his brethren," it is argued by Mr. OR. E.\amine this favorite passage of the Romish priests: "Simon, Simon," haid our Lord, " Satan hath desired to have you," all my disciples, " but I have prayed for thee, Simon, that thy ta.ii\i fail tiot utterly ." Does not this rather ar^ue inferiority on the part of Peter ? It would appear that special prayer must be made for him, because he was more likely to prove unfaithful than any of his brethren, and needed special aid. This is proved by the sequel, for his faith so far failed that he denied his Lord. True, he did not finally apostatize, his faith, did not utterly fail, as Judai did, but he fell as none of bis brethren fell. " When thou art converted," said our Lord, i. c., restored to a sense of thy sin and failing, and to my favor, "streagthen thy brethren ;" shew them in thy case, the mercy of God, and the need of constant circumspection, prayer, and humility. What proof does this contain of Peter's supremacy ? None at all. In the 43rd verse of the tame chapter, we read, that an angel strengthened our Lord during his agony in the garden : but would Mr. OR. conclude from this, that the angel was superior to the Son of God ? Neither does the command to Peter to " strengthen his brethren," imply that he was their superior. His was '■ the office of feeding both the lambs and the sheep," we are told. The passage referred to is John xxi, 15 and 16, where we have an account of Peter's restoration to the office which he had forfeited by his denial of Christ. It is very remarkable that when the angel sent the message to the disciples after the resurrection of the Saviour, he did not include Peter among the disciples. " Go," said he, " and tell the disciples and Peter, that lie goeth before you into Galilee." He does not call Peter a disciplei but names him after, as if to remind him that be had forfeited all claim to that office. Christ, in his infinite mercy, sent especially for Peter to restore him to the office of feeding his flock, in common with the other disciples, who had not forfeited their office. Peter had three times denied hit Lord, and his Lord three times asked the question, " Lovest thou me ?" Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, " Lovest thou me ?" Why was he grieved ? If our Lord was conferring peculiar honor upon him, must he not have been aware of it ? And instead of being grieved would ho not have been elated with joy ? Peter was not the man to be depressed when honor wrb given to him. J.Hil he M w as grieved, eiUier. became he supposed that

CluKt doubted ln\ sincerity, or because lie just then remembeicd that he had thnce denied his Mastei. And as he thrice denied, Christ required himtlnico to confess, and thrice renewed his comraiesioii to be an Apostle. The conclusion of the same chapter proves that Peter had no superioiity given him over the other dis-« ciple*, for when he asked concerning John, " Lord, and what shall this man do ? " Jesus said to him, "If I will that he tarry till I come, what is tliat to thee ? Follow tliou me." Thus openly rebuking him for presuming to interfere will) John in the exercise of that coramibsijn which he had recoivcd in common with all the Apo'tle*, fiom Chriit himself, and winch he held independently of any other authority whatever. What would the Saviour say Lo the pretended successors of Peter were he now on eai th ? Seeing how they loin it over God's hentag*, would he not e\pose, and rebuke and punish their anoqjancc ? The other passages quoted by Mr. OR. arc equally destitute of proof on the assumed Popedom of St. Peter, and while the Scriptuies contain not a 6ingle |ias,age to support such an assumption, they contain innumerable proofs that Peter was not superior in authority to any other Apostle. Was he an ambassador, so weie they all. '• We are ambassadors, for Christ, 1 ' sajs St. P.tul. Was he a foundation ? The wall of the New Jerusalem had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve Apostles of the Lamb. Rev. x\\, 14. Was he a builder of a spiiitual house? "As a wi'e master builder 11. aye laid the foundation," says Paul. (Ist Cor. iii. 10). Had he power to feed the sheep of Christ ? So had others. Indeed, so have all true nrnisters of God. " Take heed unto youiselves, and to all the (lock, over tke which the Holy Ghost hatli made you overseers, to feed the Church of God," Acts xx, 28. Was his commission universal ? So was theirs. "Go ye into all tin world and preach the gospel to every creature." Nor docs any of them appear to have had the most distant idea that Peter was supieme. hence in the ISth eh. of Matt, they enquire " who is the giealost in the kingdom of heaven ?" And when the inolhci ot James and John came to ask of Christ that hei son* might be chief, and the ten weie indignant at the icquest, because they knew they were equal, what a icproof Cluisl administeied — "Ye know that the pi incus of the Gentiles exercise dominion ovei them, and they thataie gieat exercise aulhoiity upon them. IS tit a shall not be so among you : but whosoever will be; great among you let him he your mmistei." — M<ur. 20, 25 & '2b'. How fatal to the boasted supremacy of the Church of Rome ! And though Mr. OR. would make it appear that Peter was chief in the Council at Jeiusalem, docs the sacred history say so, rather does it not rc>pic»ent James as chief speaker and president of that conference ? And now, Mr. Editor, I leave it with your readers t» say whether any of the Sciipluics quoted by Mr. OR. in support of the Romish doctiineof Petcr'b supremacy, uippoit sut h an idea. But Mr. OR. is manifestly convinced himself that it is insuppoi table fiom the word oi God, for he tells jou that " it is idle torcqniie pi oof fiom "scripture on such matteis," and that "we nust have recom -.c to tradition." Is it probable that 3 uch an important matter should be omitted in the Evangelists who iccoid many things of less magnitude? If our Loul intended such a doctrine to be an aiticle of faith, the denial of which would incur damnation, as laugh t by the pietcndcd infallible Church, would he liave sufi'eicd it to be omitted Such in idea is fatal to the whole argument. It is a confession that the 3laim is unfounded. 'I he mcmbeis of the Chinch of Rome must see that Mr. OR. cannot support fiom the vord of God the claims of his Church to supremacy. A.s to tradition, it is ol no authority in the Chuicli of God, "To the law and the testimony." Eveiy doc;iine that is without foundation in Sciipture has no :laim on our f lith, and eveiy doctrine that is contrary o Sciiptuie, as that we have just examined manifestly s, is to be rejected as hercticil, and fatal to the soul* )f men, though all the Fathers that ever lived should each and enfoice it. We acknowledge neithei the Fathers nor their traditions. The fact is that the greatest possible contradictions are to be found in their yorks — they contradict themselves, they contradict iach other, and they contiadict the sacred word. We jould quote as much against Rome from them, as Mr. O'U. can quote in favoi, weie it woith the time and trouble ; but lo the divine word we appeal, by it we stand or fall, and leave the fathers to those who are contented to take them as infallible guides. As the premises are thus proved to be unfounded, of course the conclusion drawn by Mr. OR., that the successors ot Peter are invested with Petei's aulhonty, falls to the ground, Peter was never Bishop of Home, for it was incomputable with his Apostleship— no Scripture records such an appointment, and no tradition can piove it. Jt has never yet been ciscettained that he visited tliat city at all. lie is never once mentioned in connexion with that church throughout the whole of St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans. And had he i - esidcd there would St. Paul have named eveiy other eminent pcison but Peter ? Is it likely' Pelci never. held such an office, and therefore could have no successors in an office he never held. He was an Apostle, and as such the Apostles have no successors. It was an extraoidinary calling for special times, and died with the men that sustained it. The remaining part of Mr. O'R.'s letter shall be answered in the following number. I i cmain, yours, Sec. A PROTESTANT. Auckland, April 21. 18lS

The long-talked of assemblage of Peers, Members of Parliament, and landed proprietors of Ireland, culled together by the " Irish Council," took place on Thursday, in one of the small rooms of the Rotunda. The number present is not stated ; but the attendance is described as falling short of what was to be expected from Ike long notice and the exertions made to bsat up for recruits. Lord Cloncurry pleaded. He was supported by a considerable number of Irish notables of all parties : for instance, there were, Lord Milltown, Mr Fagan, M.P., Mr. Nicholas Power, M.P., the Honourable Cecil Liwless, M P., Mr Monsell, of Tervoe, M.P., Sir Lucius OBrien, M.P., Mr. Smith OBrien, M.P., Mr. JohnO'Cunnell, M.P., Mr. Charles Gavan Duffey. Sir Coleman o'Loghl°n, as Seerelaiy to the meeting, readaieport prepared by the " lush Council." It declared the neces-ily ot providing pieseut supplies of food for the jieople, and of increasing cue future productiveness of the country ; suggesting modes of doing so. In order to provide food, Parliament is invited to impose a property tax on lush propnttors ; relief fur the able-bodied to be given only in exchange for labour. In order to tki improvement of the country the report suggests a bill to becure the tenant!, the value of their impiovements, with " tenant. tight," and checks on suoletting ; encouragement of dix-cul'ice, and of fisheries; and an incirase of the cuiieiicy by theiisueof "Government debentures." A string of resolutions based on the repoilw.is proposal : the three first were adopted, and the consideration of the remainder were deleired till Saturday ; nil winch cU) the meeting adjourned,— Spedutor, Ni'vcnba 20.