ORIGINAL CORRESPONDENCE.

New Zealander, Volume 9, Issue 749, 18 June 1853, Page 3

ORIGINAL CORRESPONDENCE.

To the Editor of the New-Zkalanbeu. Sir—My attention having been called to two allusions to me in the last number of the Southern Cross, permit me to make some observations in reference to them. The first is as follows : '* We re?;iet being compelled to decline tlie insertion of the letter of ' A Pensioner.' * * These are so much, mixed up with the names of Crispe, Lust, 6: Co., and there arc so many private matters brought forward, that it would be unbecoming to insert them in a public journal. We have for some time been fully aware of the history of some of tbese gentry in the rnotLer country ; still they are scarcely fitting subjects for the colunius ofa newspaper."— Southern Cross, June 14. Now, Sir, the writer of the above evidently wishes his readers to understand that he knows something of the past history of Mr. Crispe and myself, so disreputable as to be unfit to be detailed in" the columns of his immaculate journal. Were it indeed so, it would still be base enough to bring forward such insinuations against us, merely because we happened to be opposed to the election of the proprietor of the Southern Cross as Superintendent of the Province ; but what is the amount of baseness manifested, when such insinuations are made without the slightest foundation \ Mr. Brown knows nothing— can know nothing—of my " history in the mother country" the recital of which would make me blush. I challenge him to speak out, or confess himself a slanderer. Some of the most respectable persons in the colony know that I have no cause to be ashamed of the character I bore in my native land ; and I leave it to all wlio know me to testify whether I have done anything since I came to this colony, to forfeit the character I brought with me. With respect to my friend, Mr. Crispe, I only knew him by name before leaving Britain—but I feel perfectly assured that Mr. Brown's insinuation is also utterly unfounded as regards him. The second reference to me is in a letter signed " Richard Clark," who, I presume, is the Mr. Clark known to be closely with Mr. Brown, and a member of his committee. _ The letter says, " The schoolmaster of the political parson of Onehunga * * states that the brother of ' Brown's brewer' called him a liar, because he denied having- coriie there to disturb the meetinj. That statement is wholly untrue." And so indeed it is —but it is no statement of mine, Mr. Clark being entitled to the entire honour of its parentage. By reference to my letter you will sec that I said nothing of the kind. I stated, (and can produce abundant evidence of the truth of that statement) that having contradicted an assertion that none of Mr. Brown's friends had attended at, or interfered in, the meetings of Col. Wynyard's friends held at Onehunga, "aperson who, I understand, is a brother of Mr. Clark, Mr. Brown's brewer, roared out repeatedly, ' You are a liar!'" Mr. Clark now says that this choice and gentlemanlike language was applied to me, because I denied having grossly abused Mr. Brown at a meeting convened 1 y Col. Wynyard's friends, and that it was not his brother who used that language. My belief at the tune was, that it was to Mr. Clark himself I was indebted for the compliment ; others told me thatit was his brother, and 1 supposed I had been mistaken. Mr. C. having exonerated his brother, I now return to my first belief. With respect to the other fact, I am quite contented that the truth of my statement should rest o;i my character for uprightness, with those who know me, and for the benefit of those to whom 1 am a stranger, I shall only suggest, that surely little dependence can be placed on the memory or accuracy of one who, with my letter before him, could write that in that letter I stated something altogether different from what the letter does state. I was indeed accused of having abused Mr. Brown, by calling him a liar. But this accusation was made after Mr. Clark's ebulition, and was brought forward by one of Mr. Brown's bosom friends as a reason why I had no right to take offence at having that epithet applied to me. To this I replied, "I never attacked Mr. Brown personally, on the contrary, in commencing the observations referred to by Mr. Clark, 1 said, ' I mean to say nothing, nor have 1 anything to say against Mr. Brown peisonaUy. As a merchant, I have no reason to doubt that he has deserved all the success he has achieved.'" What I did was this, — [read to the meeting a good many paragraphs from Mr. Brown's Southern Cross in reference to this contest, and after reading each of them, I asked—" Is that true :" The reply was invariably an indignant " No." And after this verdict, I characterised the statement as it deserved. If Mr. Brown's friends consider this the same as calling Mr. Brown a liar, I cannot help it; btrj; / did not apply any such language to him or any other man. The statement that I have any "personal hatred," "intense" or otherwise, to Mr. Brown, is simply ridiculous. Mr. C. himself cannot possibly believe it. I believe all Onehunga is in astonishment t > find our worthy Pastor styled a " Political Parson," for I am persuaded that tliere is scarcely a man in tha settlement who has kept himself so entirely free from all interference in this contest. Beyond subscribing the requisition he has absolutely neither spoken or done anything in the matter. In conclusion I would take the liberty of asking my brother Electors, what they think of the way in which Mr. Brown and his friends are attempting to destroy, by vile insinuations, or open abuse, the characters of men whose only offence is, that they have felt it their duty to take an active part in opposing his Election' —Are these some of the good deeds by which Mr. Brown has established a claim to be placed at the head of this province. R. B. LUSK.

To the Editor of the New-Zealaxder. Sip,—lt is rather strange that Mr. Joseph May, who imagines himself a sort of colonial Blackstone on all legal points, should not know that " occupancy" gives a vote even in five, six, or any number of boroughs or divisions. Does he imagine that a merchant cannot have a town house, and country house, and occupy both ; if so, however learned he may imagine himself talc in the law, ifc is well for the community that such is not his profession or calling. 1 would guarantee that I am borne out in this simple question by every legal gentleman in the town of Auckland. But it is still more strange that at the late Provincial Election, when \Y was leaving the Northern division, to reside in the Southern division, this said learned luminary, Mr. Joseph May, urged my claming to vote in both. But at that time we were voting for the same parties. So much for his political consistency. There were two objections which this convenient friend of Mr. Brown's; was caused to make —but neither were struck off; it must be rather vexing to have a Hash in the pan with both barrels.—l am, Yours, &c. Joseph Cbispe. To the Editor of the New-Zeaeaxder. Sir, One of Mr. Brown's friends, who is employed as "a night and day worker" for that Candidate, was asked the other day how it was that he came to identify himself with what the Cross puts forth respecting Colonel Wynyard, which he must know, as well as everybody else here, contained gross fabrications. His reply was that he was well aware that these attacks would not affect the Colonel here, hut that it would all " read very well at home," where Governor Grey had got credit for sagacity in appointing Colonel Wynyard to the Lieut.-Governor-ship ! This, coupled with the Colonel having been by the wish of the people placed as a rival Candidate to Mr. Brown for the Superintendency, may account for the altered tone of Mr. Brown's newspaper towards the Colonel now, as compared With its eulogies of him while Lieut.-Governor. Argus.