Original Correspondence.

New Zealander, Volume 5, Issue 348, 30 August 1849, Page 3

Original Correspondence.

To (he Editor of the New Zcalander, p IR — i w as much surprised to obietve in your teadmg article of Saturday, regarding the M'irriaa;e OrdmKticp, the following assertion or insinuiition — '• ff the third gentleman now adopts the opinions and sympathises in the views ;adva'iced in the Sou/hern Cross, we can only Bny, he has changed his mind since the day of the interview." As the gentleman so pointedly alluded to, I beg to ei»e my most unqualified denial to the truth of what \ou there state. My opinions and views with respect to the Marriage Ordinance ia genera', and to the Go*ernor\ Deputy Re-nstmr expedient in particular, have nri'her now, nor at ant/ time, been adopted from the Southern Cross. Tlie^e opinions and views, such as they me, were openly stated before his Excellency, when I hid the honour to meet him, at his own request, along with members of the committee appointed at the public meeting. These opinions and views were at ill mo c unreservedly stated to the gentleman whom I accompanied from the interview, and again no less strongly and unreservedly in presence 01 the committee the day before a single line had been published on the subject by the Southern Cross. You know that: and, therefore, whether 1 sympathise with much, or with anything advanced in the Southern Crost, whether my opinions and views on this matter coincide with those of its editor or not, you know that it is not true that I adopted them from either him or his paper. I have not changed my mind since the day of the interview. My opinions on the subject aie, if anything, more confirmed than ever ; «nd I conceive that you were no more warranted to make any assertion, or an insinuation to the contrary, than you were to assert or insinuate that I had now adopted my views from tli« Southern Cross. I read bolh the Cross and the New Zealandcr, but 1 presume it does not follow from that, that I am under ihe necessity cither of " edopting or of sympathising with" the views regarding the Marriage Ordinance advanced in the one, or of implicitly accepting as sound, the Editorial expositiod of Erastianism of the other. In concluiion, may I beg that, in future, as you are " most reluctant to enter upon penonal references," you will extend your reluctance to everything that personally respects me i I have little inclination, and no time, to engage in newspaper controversy. Indeed, I would have taken no notice of your remarks at all, had it not buen suggested to me, that nlonce would have implied, that 1 acquiesced in wh.it w<ts not true. I am, your obedient servant, Geo. A. Panton. Auckland, August 27, 1849.

To the Editor of tha New Zealander. Sir, — In your paper of yesterday you speak of Mr. Meuranl's petitioi) as containing charges •' unfounded and calumnious." I allow that one sentence, which has been already explained, might be construed into a charge; but where are the rest? I mU6t beg you to point them out, if you are able, and to quote the words. You have acted wrong in allowing yourself to make auch an aisertion, without printing the petition} which would then have ipoken for icielf. I am, Sir, Your§, Sea,, The Writer.

[" The Writer" of the Petition no doubt believed the Petitioner's statements, or, we are sure, he would be amongst the last to lend hiimelf to their propagation. But we must take the case— not according to Jiis belief— but as it came before the Council. The Petitioner made certain charges agains' the Governor, which his Excellency distinctly contradicted, producing a series of official correspondence in support of that contradiction. His vindication seemed so satisfactory to the Council, that even the gentleman who presented the Petition declared, in unqualified terms, that he did not then believe the whole of ils allegations. Concurring in this view, we expressed our opinion that the evidence showed the accusation to be " unfounded and calumnious;" for if such charges were " unfounded," surely they must merit the designation of " calumnious." And we do not yet see what other conclusion we could have erived ut, So far from

wishing to do injustice to the Petitioner, we unhesitatingly (though at considerable inconvenience to ourselves) gave imertion on Tuesday to a very long; letter on hit side of the question. But we much doubt whether our priming his Memorial — accompanied, as it outjht to be, with the statements in refutation of itwould do him any grod.— Kd ]