GAMMON.

New Zealander, Volume XVIII, Issue 1718, 27 August 1862, Page 4

GAMMON.

To the Editor of the New-Zkalandek. ' Sut, —I observe that the honorable Mr. Facing-both-ways has condescended to open his bosom to your contemporary the Southern Cross, and to constitute himself “ Occasional Correspondent ” of that journal. There are two very gratifying announcements in his despatch which particularly interest the people of Auckland. The first is, that “ geniality and modesty,” ’ qualities which were hidden so carefully under a bushel in this place, have been suddenly developed in the atmosphere of Wellington in the person of the hon. member for the City East. The next is, that the seat of Government is to be r* moved from Auckland. I wonder, sir, whether, when our Auckland conservator reads this charming notice of his newly found virtues, he will receive at all the impression which Master David Copperficld always experienced in the presence of the great Mr. Liltimer; —whether, in fact, he will feel that he is extremely “ young,” not to say remarkably green. I am very unwilling to suppose that he*has deliberately bartered the right of this Province for the very fleeting title of “Honorable,” and I am, therefore, constrained to think that, with all his “ practical acuteness,” he has been most delightfully “ sold.”

I am, Sir,

A Tklegeaji,

Auckland, August 22, 1862

To the Editor of die New-Zealakdbr,

Sir, —Herewith I send you a Tc,mnaki Herald, contaieing a portion of the correspondence with Canon Stowell. As you have inserted the letter of Canon Stowell to my London correspondent, and as that letter contains (in an extract from a letter of the Rev. Henry Venn, Hon. Clcr. Sec. C. M. S.) reflections upon myself, I trust that, as a matter of fair play, you will give publicity to my reply to the “ false and slanderous” statement of Mr. Venn. I have, &c., Henry H. Brown. Taranaki, August 16th, 1862.

Taranaki, New Zealand, August 14th, 1862. Rev. Sir, —Having entrusted to a London correspondent the decision as to the course to be taken with regard to any notice which you might take of my letter to you, I am, for the present, precluded from offering any observations upon the letter which was written by you to him, and which seems to have been published in the Manx Sun. Embodied in that letter, however, is a letter to you from a “London official of the Church Missionary Society”—Mr. Venn, I presume. As you have thus given publicity to his remarks upon me, I feel at liberty to public a reply to them, although I withhold all comment upon your own remarks. Mr. Venn’s letter contains the following words, “ Mr. Brown has also written a letter of remonstrance to me for allowing our printing press in New Zealand to print, as he terms them, such false and slanderous pamphlets as those of Sir W. Martin, late Chief Justice of New Zealand, Sir W. Denison, Governor of Sydney, and a Mr, Turner, one of the most respectable settlers.” I enclose a copy of my letter to Mr. Venn, that you may decide for yourself whether I have applied to the works in question the words “ false and slanderous,” or any epithets at all like them or equivalent to them. You will perceive that no such words are to be found in my letter. From Mr. Venn’s inaccuracy (to say the least of it) about my letter, which he saw himself, you may judge of the amount of reliance to be placed upon his authority with regard to affairs at the antipodes.

You may likewise decide for yourself whether Mr. Venn has fairly represented to you the ground whicli I hare taken. You will percoire that I maintained that it is an abuse of a mission press to employ it in the publication of any political works whatever. A Missionary Society, as such, can have no political opinions, whatever may bo the private opinions of individual subscribers or officials. Therefore, if the machinery of a Missionary Society is employed in giving expression to political opinions, it is really individuals who make use of the Society as a speaking-trumpet in order to give the louder utterance to their own opinions. Ido not complain of Mr. Venn or his colleagues for “ thinking me mistaken;” hut I do complain of them for using the machinery of the Church Missionary Society in impressing their own views upon the public mind.

The reference to Mr. Turner as “one of our most respectable settlers” is somewhat amusing to us on the spot, who know the circumstances, and (among others) how Mr, Turner has, from the commencement of the war to the present day, been drawing pay and rations for bearing arms against the Maories, whoso cause he professes to advocate so warmly.

As the word “ Christian” does not occur in my letter. Mr. Venn, by placing it between inverted commas, cannot mean to indicate that it is a quotation. Therefore, the apparent inference is, that he means it ns the sneering insinuation of a doubt whether I am entitled to be called a Christian. Whether I am, or am not, entitled to that name must he decided by a higher Judge than Mr. Venn. I may venture, however, to remark that views similar to ray own are entertained by men of character, from whom even Mr. Venn himself would scarcely withhold the title of Christian. Among others who might be named, our present Chief Justice Arney has publicly declared that Taranaki has never received justice either from the General or Imperial Government. 1 remain, Reverend Sir, Your obedient servant, „ „ . JIJSHP JiIWVN,

J, HOUSE of LORDS.—Tuesday, June 17. I death of lord canning. . I Earl Granville, with evident emotion, said,—lt is my duty, however painful, to inform the House of the loss of one- of Its most 1 distinguished members, 1 hat great,'juSC arid courageous man; Lord Canning, is no inore. He has, under Divine Providence, by the highest qualities that dignify statesmanship,, preserved and strengthened the dominion of his Sovereign and hid country over a vast and prpperous empire. He has sacrificed, but not thrown away, his own life, and that of one dearer to him, in the work. This House will, in unison with the Queen and her people, appreciate the national loss we have sustained. A few moments passed in profound silence. Lord Chelmsford then said,—ln the absence of the noble earl (the Earl of Derby) I cannot refrain from joining in the strong expressions of regret which we have just heard from the noble lord. lam sure your lordships deeply sympathise with those sentiments, and I only Wish I had words to express my sense of the irreparable loss which the country has sustained (hear). . , ~ , . Lord Brougham.—My lords, lam sure there can be no dissentient voice, not only in Parliament, but throughout the country, to the expression of deep regret at the loss we have just sustained. Without any distinction of party, and without any difference of rank, I believe it will be admitted that the talents and the virtues'of Lord Canning stand as high and in as proud a position as those of any man who has ever served the Queen (hear, hear). Lord Lyvedcn.—Having been associated with Lord Canning during the most eventful period of his career, I cannot refrain from saying one or two words on this occasion. It is greatly to the honour of Lord Canning that he went out to India impressed with the belief that ho would have a long reign of peace and prosperity, during which he would be able to promote the social happiness and the material welfare of the people of India. But during his sway the greatest insurrection which history records took place, and in place of new financial arrangements he had to display his energy and his resources in defending the empire of the Queen. Equally incapable on the one hand of being induced to do what was wrong by popular applause, and. of being deterred from doing what was right by popular detraction, he had the infinite glory of finishing his career as he intended to commence it—by setting right the finances of the country, and by improving its social condition. , His private and attached friends, as well as the whole country, must deeply lament his loss, but they have the satisfaction of knowing that he died not too soon for his glory, and that he was withdrawn from the scene after achieving the greatest honour which can be gained by an Englishman—that of having preserved for his country one of its most important provinces, and raised it to be a state of prosperity which it had never enjoyed before (hear, hear). THE CASE OP THE EMILY ST. MEERE. Lord Brougham, on behalf of his noble and learned friend (Lord Lyndhurst); whose health, as their lordships would be'glad to hear, had greatly improved of late (hear, hear), asked for the correspondence which had taken place respecting the capture of this vessel by the Americans, and her recapture from the prize crew. He understood that there had been some correspondence upon this subject, and he wished to know from the noble earl whether there would be any objection to produce that correspondence. Earl Russell.—l have no objection to lay the papers before the House, as the correspondence is now closed, and Lord Lyons, in his last letter, promised to send it home immediately. The opinion of law officers was taken upon this question, and they stated that there was no power in this country to surrender the vessel, or to give it up to the United States’ Government. It was at that time supposed there was no precedent to refer to, but I have been informed this morning that there is a precedent, singularly enough, when the British Government demanded from the American Government the surrender of a vessel which had been recaptured by the crew after being seized as a prize. Mr. Adams, the grandfather of the present American Minister in this country, was then President, and he replied that there was no precedent for such a demand. The result was the British Government failed to obtain the redress they sought from the American Government. (“ Hear,” and a laugh.)