Original Correspondence. To the Editor of the New Zealander.

New Zealander, Volume 6, Issue 489, 21 December 1850, Page 2 (Supplement)

Original Correspondence. To the Editor of the New Zealander.

Sir,— u Another Layman" is a more sensible defender of Archdeacon Henry Williams than ha» as yet appeared. Unlike Mr. Busby be confines himself to one point and does not attempt to prove too much. The point at issue between us is whether the un removed imputation on the Archdeacon's character justified his refusal to give up the grants in question. Before I notice this point, let me say a few words in reference to my letter of the 1 6th ultimo, which " Another Layman" states is not what it purports to be, a review of Mr. Bmby's pamphlet, but an attack on the Archdeacon, and if founded on a false presumption. The first charge is partially correct, but I must plead (he necessity of the cace. To prove the advocate wrong, and, at the same time to leave his client in the right were, under the circumstances of the case, impossible, and, moreover, I never attempted such a task. With regard to the second, I was aware that the dispute on the part of the Aichdeacon was specifically one of character, but Mr. Busby himself in the pamphlet (p. 44) cuts away the ground, under that head, from the Archdeacon, when he states " It is most clear that by the plain meaning of this undertaking, Archdeacon Williams appears to give up to the discretion of the Bishop or of the five clergymen, the question between himself and the Governor, as regarded the land, not conditionally as in his former letter, but absolutely, and that he left also to their judgment the nature and amount of enquiry which should talcepface, or of acknowledgment which should have been made by the Governor in respect to the aspersions upon the character of the Missionaries " When Mr. Busby, one of the Archdeacon's most zealous and least impartial advocates, came to such conclusions, was not I fairly entitled also to conclude that either the Archdeacon repudiated, or was entirely ignorant of the meaning, of his own words ? I now come to the point of character, and I am free to confess that if a pledge bsd not been given, or hs.fl afterwards been broken, by the Bishop, to institute a full enquiry into the imputations complained of,) the Archdeacon was fully justified in retaining his grants, until such imputations had been clearly f stablikhed or honorably withdrawn. " Another Layman " argues that this pledge was broken. I cannot admit that argument ; nor has, I believe, the Archdeacon ever asserted it, — certainly Mr. Busby, throughout bis elaborate defence, does not do so. What are the facts ? On the 28th September, 1847, the Aichdeacon drew up some questions ad* d rested to Governor Grey,— the Bishop disapproved of them and recommended others, to which the Archdeacon in turn objected. The date of these mutual disapprovals does not appear, but on the 29th (one j day after the original proposal) the Archdeacon sud~ ! denly retracts, and attributes the " main reason" for his "change of sentiments" to the account of Governor Grey's proceedings at the Bay of Islands,, as published in the Southern Cross of the 25th. Did he talk of " a breach of pledge by the Bishop," of " the disapproval of his own questions," of " the Governor's denial of throwing imputations" as reasons for the charge ? Is it possible that, if he had been influenced' by such ressom, he would not have mentioned them as the principal ones for so summarily quashing a negotiation scarcely commenced, rather than have given as his " main reason a circumstance which did not in the slightest degree affect the solemn promise and pledge reciprocally given and received by himself and tlia Bishop ? When I reflect that only one day elapsed bttween the Archdeacon's questions, and his repudiation of the whole affair, and when I consider the reason given for it by the Archdeacon himself, I am astonished at his inconsistency, but when I am asked to believe that other reasons really actuated him— reasons which he did not mention, and one of which reflects on the veracity of the Bishop— l scarcely know, if auc h be the case, for which to blame him most, for the Indecent haste of his conclusions, or for his disingenuous suppression of their avowal. However that may be, his recorded reasons have been under the consideration of the Home Committee, and that Committee -quite alive to imputations on, and naturally careful of, the character of their servants — have deliberately resolved : " That they can see no sufficient grounds in the circumstances referred to by Archdeacon Henry Williams for the withdrawal of his consent to that arrangement after it had been formally given on the 13ih September, and acted upon by the Committee." I am, Sir, Your obedient servant, Auckland, 20th Dec, 1850. A Layman>