ORIGINAL CORRESPONDENCE. To the Editor of the New Zealand Spectator, and Cook's Straits Guardian. December 8, 1846.

New Zealand Spectator and Cook's Strait Guardian, Volume III, Issue 142, 9 December 1846, Page 3

ORIGINAL CORRESPONDENCE. To the Editor of the New Zealand Spectator, and Cook's Straits Guardian. December 8, 1846.

Sir, — I have lead an article ii jour paper of Saturday lasf, occasioned by a public meeting, held on the prior Thursday evening, at the Auj rora Saloon, which, as chairman on the occasion, I feel it due to the public I should not leave unnoticed. The artic'e in question purposes to be descriptive and critical; and I know not which most to censure, the faithlessness of the de.sc.iption, or the bad taste of the ctiticism. Properly, I have little else to do wiih this article than to write a series of negatives, from which those who were not present would gather the unsupported nature of the affirmations, and which those who were present, I doubt not, would maintain to be correct, in opposition to «he Editorial " n c understand that a public meeting was held at the AuroiaSiloon,"&c.&c, upon which avowed hearsay jou have based a most unjustifiable attack upon a laige number of your tellow-co'onist«. 1 deny that it was generally believed that the originators of the meeting were actuated solely by selfish and personal motives. There has long been a strong desire in this settlement to place the Company's Principal Agent, as a public man whose power and opportunity has been immense for good or evil in a just light before the world, and Mr. Hair, as he avowed, inserted the sidvertisement which appe-.red in your caper, calling a meeting, h ivingfor its object an address to the New Zealand Company to recal Colonel William Wakefidld, a copy of which was likewise sent to the Independent. Upon being informed (>f this advertisement, I suggested that a vublie meeting had belter he called, to consider a subject of much more importance at the present moment; namely, the Company's Twentieth RRepo t; and the consequence was, that an advertisement, in con!«r;nity with this view, was sent to the Independent, and accidentally a copy was not bent to replace the advertisement which appeared in your paper, and thereby on Wednesday m jrninj; your paper appeared with an advertisement notifying a meeting to take place fur the recal of Colonel Wakefield, and the Independent with an advertisement for a meeting at the same time and place to consider the Company's Twentieth Report. But supposing the advertisement in your piper had alone appeared, what then ? Is it to be 111feired from your article that the public of this place are not entitled to canvass the fitness of the Company's officers? Will you maintain th's position? I will maintain that the capacity a ( sd conduct of the Company's officers are fit subjects for the colonists to deal with. If the Company manage to preserve their existence, they will possess the staple of thpse settlements, for the land must be regarded as such, and the salaries of their servants necessarily enhance the disposable price of land here. Thus, Colonel Wakefield's £1000 a-year is a tax of five shillings an acre upon four thousand acres of land annually, and in twelve years, of which {seven have elapsed, 5 r >,000 acres, or half the land comprised in the First and Principal Settlement, will have been charged with five shillings an acre, to pay the salary considered equivalent to the valuable services he has ever rendered, and doubtless ever will render this settlement; or regarded in another way, he will have derived 12,000 acres as a free grant from the colony, estimating the price of land at MX per acre ; or an amount that would comfortably import 6oo adult persons from Europe, it is impossible that the Company cm be regarded as a private institution, and with which we have nothing to do. Had they to select 100,000 acres out of millions, it might be otherwise, but as they have a pre-emptive right over all the available land in these settlements, their conduct and that of their Agent, absolutely forces itself at all times upon the public of this colony. Why this sensitiveness about an advertisement for the recal of Colonel Wakefield appearing in your paper? Is not your intemperate article occasioned by the advertisement not also appearing in the Independent ? The meeting was not thinly attended,, nor did all those who have hitherto on public questions usually taken a leading part carefully abstain from being present. The meeting was numerously and most respectably attended, and it was as orderly as any meeting at which I have been in this place. All do not admit, nor am I aware that any who were present admit that the proceedings were any thing but creditable to the parties concerned in them, and that the meeting was a complete failure. 1 confess I cannot detect wherein the failure of the meeting is exhibited. It is adjourned, and next Thursday will decide whether it can properly be termed a failure; and allow me to add, that I much question whether your strictures will contribute to causing iti being badly attended.

The assumption in your article is, that th • meeting was organised u.ider the advertisement in your paper, while the proceedings prove It was organised and acted entirely in referenae to the no'ice which appeared in the Independent. But even if it had acted upon the advertisement, in your piper, namely, to consider the propriety of making an effort for the removal of dil^n^l Wakefield from his present office, I can find no justification for the calumnies you have sought to heap upon a large body of your fellow-set-tlers. I maintain the right of any person or persons to call a public meeting; and I deny that the presence or absence of any half dozen individuals is to be the test of the wisdom or fally displayed upon any occasion at a public meeting. Tlie action of the meeting is its real test. It a series of sound resolution* are sanctioned, and be sustained by good reasoning in the speeches addressed to the public, I am confident the resolutions, whether set forth by A. B. C. or D. E. and F., will produce their effect. Your notion is truly in accord uce with the Company's proprietary aristocratic scheme of representation, to which I feel confident the settlers would not submit for twenty-four hours after any attempt shall have been made to bring it into opetation. I am also at issue upon the charge made by you, against the meeting, of gross personal abuse. I cannot admit to state that which is recorded in an indisputable manner can be called gross personal abuse, though the good policy of stating it, at any particular moment may be questioned. Neither will I admit that a meeting is to be held responsible f.r any thoughtlest or imprudent expressions used by any individual while addressing it. While on tins subject, I will take the opportunity of re- j minding you that four out of the five Wakefields known to this colony have been utterly regardless of evincing that delicacy towards the feelings of others, which they of all men should have been most careful to display. But why this squeamishness about the Wakefields? And if it be right to be so considerate towards them, •<ught not the rule to be invariable, and acted upon by all parties? Has there been no personal abuse in} our leaders, and in the Colnpany's Reports? Shall I remind >ou of the personalities in your columns about Major Richmond, which were openly attributed to Mr. D. Wakefield? and my charges and your charges of madness against Capuin Fitzroy, and a few other personalities, of which jou and I, and many others, have from time to tirae been guilty ? Pray, in justice, deal with all alike. You know as welJ as I do, that the connection existing between the name of Wakefield and New Zealand lias been one of the greatest of the difficulties with which this settlement has had to contend; and that nineteen-twentieths of the people here more especially sire opposed to the Company because Colonel Wakefield represents them. Is not this the notorious fact? If you hesitate, test it by asking a public meeting for the yea and the nay upon the point, and I confeus I shall be monstrously astonished if one, yes, only one, independent individual will say more than that the lamented Captain Arthur Wakefield, R N., alone attaches an agreeable association to that family's name in this part ot the woiid. Samuel Revans, Chairman.