ORIGINAL CORRESPONDENCE.

New Zealand Colonist and Port Nicholson Advertiser, Volume I, Issue 15, 20 September 1842, Page 2

ORIGINAL CORRESPONDENCE.

To the Editor of the Neio Zealand Colonist. Sir, —lt must doubtless have been observed with surprise, and by every lover of truth, with regret, that the Bishop of New Zealand should have been so imperfectly informed as to what has taken place in this colony since its establishment, and more particularly as regards church affairs, as to make a statement in his discourse yesterday (Sunday), unfounded in fact, and of a tendency to withhold the just meed of approbation due to a zealous and highly gifted Minister of the Church of Scotland. Ilis lordship stated that we had enjoyed no opportunities of spiritual improvement; neither had the holy sacrament been administered to the religiously disposed portion of the community, for the last two years; and condoled with his congregation thereupon. ' ' ' I am, therefore, desirous of humbly offering his lordship that information which, it appears, the individuals, who of course pressed round him upon his arrival, neglected to impart—namely ,: that divine service has been constantly performed by the Rev. J. Macfarlane, of the Scotch Church, from within about two months (to my knowledge) of the first landing of emigrants up to the present time. The services, at the earliest period, were performed (by permission) in Mr. Hunter’s warehouse, Beach, Petoni; and in a few instances in the house of Colonel Wakefield, Petoni. The sacrament was also administered by the same gentlerqan, and more recently by the Rev. Mr. Hadfield, according to the forms of the Church of England. You will, I trust, excuse this intrusion upon your attention, as I could not refrain from'testifying to the effective performance of these sacred offices, by the above named rev. gentlemen. I am, Sir, Your obedient servant, Thorndon Flat, H. B. BUXTON. September 19tli, 1842.

To the Editor of the Neio Zealand Colonist. Sir, —My reply to. Mr. St. Hill’s letter which appeared in your paper of the 13th inst. will be very short. At the request of the Worthies with whom he is at

present associated, Mr. St. Hill “ demands” (a courteous expressionlthe names of those whq have used “bribery, intiJßpation, or undue influence.”', I never mentioned or to give the names of any but those who bad .attempted,, bribery, -and this I now give. I accuse Mr. Levin with attempting to bribe parties, by offering to adyan’ce ithe qualification fee—viz. £l., on condition that {they promised-to vote for the list be presented to them ; 'but, 'I am. happy to state, that I have heard of no instance in which his disgraceful ofFer was accepted. The names of some of the parties to whom he made this offer are Mr. Palmer, .of the Tinakore Road ; Mr. Box, the butcher, and two otlftir persons he made the offer to at Mr. Box’s house, whose names I do not know. , There arc others, to whom he and members of the “ committee ” ofFered to lend the £l. ; and I leave the public to judge what was the cause of their liberality at this particular period. Out of Mr. H’s. committee, but members of the same “ tail,” there are parties who were also seized with similar fits of liberality ; for instance, Mr. Ludlam (whosq liberality is notorious) paid the qualification fee for several persons to whom lie was perfectly unknown. I might also give the names of two of the ladies of Wellington, who were seized with the same complaint; one a married lady, and the other an ancient spinster. But as they arc not in Mr. St. Hill’s committee, I need not mention their names. I may add, in conclusion, that I admire the prudence of Mr. St. Hill and his committee, in avoiding discussion on other portions of my former letter, as they were well aware they had assumed that which they had no foundation for, and consequently must have lost by the attempt to establish their assumptions. I am, Sir, Yours respectfully, J. WADE. Wellington, September 19th, 1842.

To the Editor of the Neio Zealand Colonist. Sir,; —Permit me, through the medium of your columns, to draw attention to the decision of the Magistrates on Tuesday last, in the case “ Mantel! v. Ferguson,” as it is of importance that masters of vessels should know precisely what the provisions of the postage ordinance are. From the way in which the case was reported in the Gazette of Wednesday last, it would appear that the mail had been refused by the master of the Ocean, on board —but the evidence, as given by the cus-tom-house boatman, only proved the master’s refusal to receive it from him when tendered ashore. The cause of it having been brought away from the vessel by the boatman, seems to have been the inability of the only, man then on board (on the occasion of the mail being taken alongside), to sign a receipt, which need not, one would imagine, have prevented its being left; as the man on-board could have made a mark if he could not sign his name.

But the point on which it is desirable to get information is, whether it is comjmlsory on masters of vessels to receive on shore, and convey on board themselves, postoffice mails; for, in ignorance of such being the law on the subject, many masters would be disposed to decline being troubled with them until on board their vessel; particularly as the time of tendering them would generally be the busiest period—just previous to sailing—and the mail, instead of being a small one, as in the case alluded to, might he of considerable bulk and weight. The writer of the paragraph in the Gazette has, in making an extract from the Postage Ordinance, omitted the following terms, “ according to the provisions of this ordinance”—and one of the provisions of the ordihanee, viz. the sth clause reads thus : —“ Every master or person in charge of any vessel trading between, or sailing from, any of the ports of the colony, shall receive on board, and if required, give a written receipt for any / mail which shall be tendered to him for that purpose by any officer of the post-office.” The hardship of imposing a fine of £ J IO. and £\. 2s. Bd. costs of the court, upon the master of the Ocean, is, that after the boatman tendered the mail to the master on shore, there elapsed four or five hours previous to the vessel sailing;. during' which time the mail might have been taken on board, where the master would have given a receipt for it. This course (the defendant stated before the magistrates, in extenuation of the offence he was charged with) he pointed out to the boatman, when he declined giving a receipt, for it ashore. Hoping that you will give publicity to the above, I remain, Sir, yours, &c, J. H. WALLACE. For Wallace, & Co. Agents for the Schooner Ocean. Wellington, September 17th, 1842.