Untitled

New Zealander, Volume 9, Issue 767, 20 August 1853, Page 3

Our readers have probably observed a “Notice to Correspondents” in our last number, in which, —in answer to inquiries on the subject,—wc accounted for the non-insertion in our columns of a letter from the Rev. John Morgan, Church Missionary at Olawhao, (“ in contradiction of a statement concerning him in the Southern Cron s of July 8, in relation to the late election”), by the simple and conclusive fact that the letter had never reached us.

That Notice was elicited by the circumstance that a gentleman in Auckland had placed in our hands a communication from a friend of Mr. Morgan’s in which the following passage occurs : “ Mr. Morgan will be very much obliged to you if you will beso kind as to send up the New Zealander newspaper and the Southern Cross paper, for the following reason. Mr. Brown, in his paper of July 81h, made an attack upon Mr. Morgan, and he in consequence has answered and contradicted (he statement made in the Southern Cross of that date. Von w ill sec Mr. Morgan's reply in (lie New Zealander and Southern Cross newspapers. Please send a paper of each when you see Mr. Morgan's reply.” Subsequent inquiries were also made of us, and we therefore felt called on to notice the matter as wedid on Wednesday. Yesterday morning—that is two days after it was found that the letter must he forthcoming —Mr. Morgan’s letter was published by our contemporary, and in the course of yesterday the copy designed for ns (and which had reached Auckland on the 11th inst.) was delivered at our office by the gentleman to whom Mr. Morgan bad entrusted it, with an explanation of the cause of its having been withheld, but with Ibis Mr. Morgan will have more to do than we have. We lose no lime however in giving the letter insertion. It will be seen that its dale (which the Southern Cross lias suppressed) is the Ist of August. It was very reasonable that Sir. Morgan should feel anxious for the speedy publication of bis vindication of himself from an attack of so injurious a tendency. The character of a Christian missionary—of importance to many others—is to himself inestimable; and, considering the unfavorable impression which an vncontradictcd accusation, stub as that levelled against Mr. Morgan, was calculated to make on the Society with which he is connected, and on others in England, there were abundant grounds for bis desiring that bis denial of it should arrive at home, if possible, simultaneously with the attack. His endeavour to accomplish that reasonable and just object has, however, by some means, been frustrated. Rut now that bis statement is published, it will be found complete and conclusive on the only points on which he, as a missionary minister, need feel any solicitude. lie “did not lake any part in the election either directly or indirectly.” When his opinion was ashed, ho gave it against the right of men to vole, who, to his own knowledge, were without the qualification required by the Act of Parliament. It is true that, strictly speaking, those men had acquired a technically legal right by the success with which (without their own cognizance) their names had been smuyylcd into the Electoral Roll. But Mr. Morgan, though legally in error, was morally right, for a privilege wrongfully obtained cannot be rightfully enjoyed,— that is. according to the high and immutable standard of Christian morality. Moreover, he only gave his “ private opinion,” to one who requested it; he “did not use any influence or persuasion with any person not to vote.”

It is not strange that Mr. Brown and his friends felt anxious to postpone as long as possible the publication of Mr. Morgan’s letter, for it is impossible to overlook the additional evidence afforded by it of the means by which Mr. Brown was placed even in the position he occupied on the Poll. Men who“ in their own consciences considered that their votes would be illegal” were notwithstanding registered. This was done so entirely without any movement on their own part that, “ generally speaking, these parlies did not know that they had been registered as voters until they received Idlers and voting papers requesting than to vole for Mr. Brown /” Comment would only weaken the force of this most instructive exposure,—an exposure, however, which will probably be found to have many counterparts, when the detailed examination and analysis of the voting papers shall have been made. “lam informed,” writes Mr. Morgan, “that no voting papers were sent up to solicit votes for Lieutenant Colonel Wynyard":— the contrast is equally obvious and suggestive.