ORIGINAL CORRESPONDENCE.

New Zealand Colonist and Port Nicholson Advertiser, Volume I, Issue 92, 16 June 1843, Page 2

ORIGINAL CORRESPONDENCE.

To the Editor tf the New Zealand Colonist “ Humanum est err are.”

Sir—Permit me, in your columns, to make a few remarks on the incomprehensible leading article of Wednesday’s Gazette. Its author, in the first off-go, very properly expresses his gratitude for his trash bekig taken notice of by an inspired writer, as he terms him; hut for what reason he makes him out to be so, I will leave you or any other person to find out, if you can. I think he might as well have put his thumb upon that; for, verilyhe himself would seem to be inspired with the spirits, and no mistake, when he writes those funny pieces of non-composition which are constantly appearing in the Wellington Spectator, which, if he continue to do, may be more properly named the Port Nicholson Spectacle. He next says—“ We think we hear the “ Satellites of Jupiter exclaim, ‘ How we Stars shine !’” Does he mean to say that he is a Satellite of Jupiter ? If he really thinks so* he certainly labors under a wonderful hallucination ; -for he does any thing but shine, at least in the common acceptation of the term. Had he said—How my Gazette mystifies ! he would have been nearer the truth. In the third sentence he confuses all established opinions concerning singular and plural, by addressing, throughout the article, the inspired writer who has complimented him so highly, as his contemporaries .-‘this is grammatical inspiration with a vengeance! If it be not trespassing on your room, I may as well quote the passage :—“ After penning the introductory ‘ ‘ preface to their leader of yesterday, so far from exclaim- “ ing with Macbeth, ‘ Thou can’st not say, I did it/ we “ can imagine they fought for the glory of their wasted “ efforts [at] wit and irony.” What is the meaning of all this ? Then comes the- fourth sentence, which he no doubt imagines will throw much light on the subject of human weakness:—“ We have not that exalted notion “ of the perfectibility of poor human nature,-of which “ we are as well as themselves an epitome, as to suppose “ ourselves an exception to the admitted frailty of our “ common nature, but our philanthrophy has taught us “ 4 it is better to be sometimes cheated than to “ trust.” Does he mean here that he is aft ! ejhtome of the perfectibility of poor human natural? :) What in the name of wondejf is this ? Eerily the writer.or writers of the Gazette aH wo exceptions f to the frailty of our common naturfe; for He or they have been cheated, with only two exceptions, and that was during the Proprietor’s absence some eighteen months ago, and on the present occasion—‘-now that ourgudeman’sawa —he or they have trusted, and come out'spicy indeed, as witness the leading article of*Saturday last, which you have very judiciously given publicity in your valuable paper. But when the "Proprietor returns, he may again h&very wroth, and vociferate—Thou unprofitable servant! when he beholds the tenor of the organ of the Company, so completely metamorphosed. Oh! Satellite of Jupiter ! what hast thou done ? We may 'suppose that the learned author of Wednesday’s article will turn White in the face, when he is accused of having let others have a place, in the columns of the Spectator .for publishing their liberal

opinions. The leader of Saturday last is the best—and! the only one that has the merit of not being confused—that has appeared since the days of Knox. The writer then proceeds to say, in, the fifth sentence—“ We have “ never disguised our opinions of the Company's con- “ duct, at the same time we had rather subject ourselves “ to the imputations of countenancing what may appear “ to some persons even the mysterious policy of an indi- “ vidual, acting under the control of a distant authority, “ than unnecessarily unsettle people's minds upon points “ which, we may think, proved to be erroneous or even “ culpable, unless we felt convinced that by cavilling at “ the one or exposing the other, we were prepared to “ shew how the one might be corrected, or the other “ counteracted—This is rum (curious) to be sure: and then—“ a very few days will throw open much that “ has hitherto been necessarily hid in doubt , and we “ then may perhaps convince our contemporaries (?) that “ we differ with them more upon the most expedient time “ of canvassing the merits of the question, not only as “ regards the conduct of the Company and their Agent,. “ but of the Government and the settlers themselves." Oh! oh! som—r will out at last. And then in the sixth sentence he says—“ In conclusion, we would remind “ our contemporaries (?), that it is the last blow that “ wins the battle." This is very questionable. The seventh sentence contains something about ■ “ acting honestly and seeing “ through the more lucid atmo- “ sphere of the rising sun.” Then comes in marching order, sentence the eighth — <l There are some men whose “ censure is praise, and whose praise is censure." As this is so very indefinite, perhaps he includes himself among the rest. Then comes sentence eleven, with the appellative contemporaries as usual; and the words “ My” and “ little " in italics, to give them extra effect, I should suppose ; hut what they mean it would puzzle a conjurer to divine : and close after this is a wee bit poetry —something about a mob, which he no doubt thinks very apropos; hut he might as well have put in ” Jack and Gill went up -yon hill," &c., &c, for any real meaning it has. Lastly, his concluding paragraph, beginning “ One word," &c., is the only piece that can be understood throughout the whole article. To conclude—The days of mystification and misrepresentation are at an end, and, “ To be or not to be, that is the question ?" Are we to have our land or not? No more shuffling, Mr. Gazette. Hoping, Sir, that I have not trespassed on your patience, and that of your numerous readers, I remain, your obliged servant, By the insertion of the above remarks, A COLONIST. Wellington, June 15, 1843.