Original Correspondence.

New Zealander, Volume 5, Issue 361, 29 September 1849, Page 2

Original Correspondence.

To the Editor of the New Zcalander. Sib,—" Hyper Criticus " is worthy of bis nomerolature. In bis over-acute power of perception, be has, honeTer, lost his prcicpcc of mind. Floundering

: in the (milk and) wnter of his epistolary literature, nc catch°s at straws, which a little more reflection woul" have taught him were inadequate for support. The " Southern Cross " of to-day contain! his letter. He first disposes of my facetiae, as he calli the genuine wit of Sam Slick, by some bastard nonseme of his own, and then proceeds to my reasoning. He does not see that not publicly to notify, prior to a Public Meeting, the specific object of such a meeting, (ss the recall of a Governor) is unfair or unusual. I will reiterate my reasons. It is unfair, beca'inc it takei by surprise and at disadvantage the opponents of such an important measure. Surely it is a queer mode of •• fairly inviting opposition to a resolution" to introduce itj elaborately prepared and fortified, before a meeting which had not received the slightest public notice of ifr submission to their consideration. It is unmual, because there is scarcely a precedent for it while there are hundreds against the nJjption of such acou'.se. ' After a few complimentary tuquoquessing, "IlyperCriticus" very candidly owns that Mr. Brown " left the despatches to speak for themselves and very pmden'ly declined to enter the lists at such artifice in competition with his Excellency,"— precisely in effect the charge \vh eh I brought against Mr. Brown. To accuse a man of falsehood, and to omit proving your acouiation may be " very prudent" or, as I called It, convenient, and may succeed nt Public Meetings altogether unprepared for the subject,— but it argues too much presumption to expect the reflecting and forewarned to yield a servile assent to such a course | afterwards. I cannot undertake to say what sort of language these despatches speak to persons whose conduct they censure, but I endeavoured to show that they referred to three points, — Missionary land speculation, Factious Opposition, and dangerous unsettlement of Land Claims,— and that on these points they merely state notorious facts : these facts " Hyper- Criticus" does not gen r rally deny, but alludes to some details, through which I will follow him. He aiks— Does Governor Grey's expression relative to Church of England Missionaries' large land claims allude to some of the Missionaries only ? I reply, most certainly it does,— manifestly ao, when in another place the Governor says expressly, " some of the Missionaries," and bears testimony to the estimable character of the majority of them. This last expression Hyper-Criticus terms an inconsistency for which he is not answerable, forgetting that were he not first to beg the question by assuming the previous expression to refer to all inclus vely, the subsequent exculpation of the majority would entail no inconsistency. As regards Missionary Land Traffia in Preemption Claims, Lord Giey misunderstood Governor Grey, who takes the first opportunity of explaining the misconstruction ot hit despatch. I did not know that Governor Grey ever stated that " individuals who never were out of possession •' cannot be put in possession of lands without a large " expenditure of British blood and money." Such a statement involves an absurd contradiction of terms. II Hyper-Criticus" is diffuse on the insufficiency of Government clerks to oppose the Governor, but forgets that rank and talent are little required in op« ponents, whose position and knowledge of the proceedings of Government eminently qualify them (had they wished to do so) to embarrass him exceedingly. Suppose " Hyper-Criticus" wero in a besieged town, and part of the garrison were co equally interested with the enemy in its capture—would not alarm be justifiable, and precautions requisite? I say this without the slightest wish to impute blame to the Government officers in question, as I doubt not their conduct has been faultless and exemplary in so dimcult a position. I believe I have now replied to all the substance in the letter of " Hyper-Crilicus." About " the dismissal of Government officers in Adelaide," " indignant clerks and turnkeys," 1 have nothing to say. It may be all true, but seems irrelevant. Dismissed clerks are, I dare say, as indignant as disappointed land claimants, and probably equally unreasonable in the expression of their anger. On the subject of the petition, I did not say anything about '' Government Party"— -I merely wished its subscribers to consider whether its statements have been substantiated, — whether they originate in the conviction of fdcts, or simply represent the ebullition of party pique. I now wuh " Hyper-Criticus'' farewell. I willingly abide by what I lnve written. I have endeavoured fairly to meet his arguments and maintain my own, — intentionally shirking no objections,— intentionally sophisticating on no point, Of the result the public s the best judge. I remain, Sir, Your most obedient servant, Criticus. Auckland, September 28.

To the Editor of the New Zcalander. Sin,— l really don't know what to make of you and your paper these tinaei. I am a constant reader of your'b, nnd I read the other paper as often as I can get the loan of it from two or three neighbours who club 10 take it among them ; betides that, I sometmes b ar the tit-bits ot it when I go to town, as I heaid some of them this morning while I was doing a little shopping in Shortland-street. Now I want you to aniwar me a few questions. To be sure they are rather delicate ones ; but as I don't intend to be a backbiter till I am out and out changed into a flea, I may as well put the qucitions straight-forward t3 yourself. You can, and I suppose you will, notice them or not, just as you pleate First of all, are not you a tremendoui coward ? There it the peaceable editor of the Southern Cross challenging you in every shape and form— aye, " chal. lenge" is his word in your very teeth. He is as eager to come to the sciatcb as the Irishman that used to drag his coat on the ground through the whole fair, daring the face of man, of the other faction, to tread upoa the skirts of it. Lest you might have any holn or corner to creep out, he gives you the choice of your weapons. It's all one to him, to he can only be at you. " "Written or oral"— the pen or the tongue ;—; — " public or private" — in the Crescent, with a fine ring of. Maoris and Europenni round you, or across the table in a room with the doori locked ; take your own choice, only don't say No! Have you no compassion for tne poor man, when you see plainly that he's for all the world like the tailor in Sam Lover's story (or Carleton's, I forget which)—" bluemowlded for want of a baling" ? And have you no regard for yourself? If you show the white feather you'll be exposed at home as well as in Auckland. I'd bet California (if 1 had it) against Edward Meurant's native rights, the Editor hat sent this challenge, as well as other things, to Lord Grey, and Joe Hume (I wish it may find the poor man in better health to enjoy it). And, once more, have you no care for the honour of the Press ? Depend upon it, if you do not give satisfaction to the Cross party, before long, bo far at you are concerned, an Editor will be no more respected here than if he vvai a common Governor. Second'y — are you not a mighty big — I beg your

pardon, Sir ; I would not like to offend you—but arn't you really what Mr. Hart, at the "Great Public Meeting" told us the Surveyor General is ? lam not ' speaking now of the charge of this affecting nature that was advertised against you about a month ago,— for, somehow or other, people say you did manage to turn the tables there— but of broad hints this morning that you are wanting in " the cardinal virtues of truth and honeity," that you are trying to reduce us all to '• baseness and moral degrada'ion," &c. If you have the spirit of a man in you at all, will not this make you fix the day for the regular ne.t-to to come off? Thirdly, and lastly, for the present, (to come to the point that stirred me up to write these few lines at all)--aie you masquerading under the signa'ure of " Criticui," as " Ilypercriticus" to-day says you arc ? Are you really etiiving, by •' bearing the port of a correspondent," to "beguile that old Pantaloon, the public 1" — (Sharp fellow, that" Hyperciitieus" ! He is too well up to fox hunting to be caught in your trap). If you are doing this, no wonder it should excite the virtuous indignation of men who would be so far above playing such a trick themselves. But, dear Sir, do cxtticate me from this puzzle. Am you only the Editor, or are you also '' Ciiticus" — two single gens tlemen rolled into one ? I know you plainly intimated in a "Notice to Corresponlents" yesterday that you are not " Criticus ;" but then, if yo» have " so little regard for the cardinal virtues of truth," &c, how can I believe you ? And ths thought just strikes me (I wonder it did not occur to mo sooner) if I cannot rely upon your answers, where is the use in my putting questions to you ? Still, I should like to hear what you have to say for yourself, and remain yours, as J find you, Zekicl llombspuk. Reoauera, August 28, 1849. P.S. — Bo sure to let mo know when and where the fight is to take place. After all, I shouldn't mind backing you for a trifle. — Z H. [We can scarcely suppose that our corrcsponJent 5s Beiious. If he be realty so, let him personally call on us, and we will endeavour lo give him satisfaction: at all events.— Ed ]