ORIGINAL CORRESPONDENCE.

New Zealand Spectator and Cook's Strait Guardian, Volume III, Issue 167, 6 March 1847, Page 3

ORIGINAL CORRESPONDENCE.

To the Editor of the New Zealand Spectator. Wellington, Ist March, 1847. Sir, — A letter in your paper of 27th ult., by Mr. Swainson, calls for a few remarks. As I am informed that "R" is now absent from Wellington I venture to make them. Mr. Swainson complains that he is not allowed to proceed uninterruptedly with his " Notes," but lm complaint is unreasonable. Had he propounded a theory, and requested the public to suspend its judgment concerning it, until the facts by which it was to be supported were brought forward, he might have complained of want of courtesy; but when he misstates facts, which no subsequent explanation can possibly affect, he cannot claim any such indulgence. Moreover he ought to be awate that amenability to public critisism is a tax which must always be paid for eminence: — a statement made by an ordinary settler may pass unnoticed, when one proceeding from a person with F. R. S. appended to his name cannot be allowed to do so. In his answer to "R" Mr. Swainson re-asserts the errors contained in his "Notes." He allows that his observations are limited to Port Nicholson, never having himself been beyond it ; but he forgets that the remarks contained in the " Notes" were not limited to that district ; on the contrary, after enumerating certain supposed impediments to farming he says, they "are causes which for many years will render New Zealand a pastoral more than an arable colony :" again, " but however superior New Zealand may be to the Austtalian continent for the production of grain, it is certainly inferior in its natural pastures." Surely these expressions will justify "R" for supposing that Mr. Swainson intended his remarks to extend beyond the Hutt; but he now says, " what it is in other settlements I pretend not to knoWjL I merely write these notes from what passes before me." But the nature of Mr. Swainson's statements in reference to the Hutt itself is rather vague, he says " all the large farms in the Hutt valley have been broken up." What large farms t the only large farm that has ever existed in the Hutt valley is the one which belonged to Mr. Molesworth; and surely the illness and subsequent death of that active and energetic settler is a sufficient reason for its having been broken up* Mr. Swainson asserted in his " Notes" that "a cattle run in Wairarapa becomes exhausted

in two or three years;" and that "so far from improving, the pastures are falling off." This statement " R" denies, as, I suppose, everyhody who has visited cattle rung in New Zealand would do also. But Mr. Swainson, who confessedly has not visited any of them, persists in his assertion ; — " I must he allowed to question the accuracy of your correspondent in another point, namely, that the grazing districts now in use ' do improve' instead of deterioiating. How, let me ask, is this supposed improvement effecsed ? of what are these natural pastures compopoaed?" There is no necessity for these enquiries: there is no need at present to ask — "How?' 1 or " What?" The subject in dispute is a mere matter of fact depending upon evidence — it is merely this — Do cattle runs deteriorate or do they improve? I hesitate not to affirm that in every part of New Zealand I have visited they improve very rapidly, and I know many intelligent persons, who have resided many years in this country, who are ready to affirm the same : it is indeed difficult to imagine how so notorious a fact could even have been questioned. It would have been more candid on the part of Mr. Swainson, when he found that his a priori reasonings had led him into error to have acknowledged it. Nor must Mr. Swainson's i sweeping assertion — that the natural pastures of New Zealand are inferior to those of Australia, be allowed to pass unnoticed. I'have seen some of both ; and have no hesitation in saying, that, in my opinion, the average grass lands in New Zealand are so superior to the average grass lands of Australia, that they would carry three times the amount of cattle. Without,mentioning the grass districts of the Middle Island, what grazier could wish to feast his eyes on more splendid grass districts than the plains of Ahuriri extending to the source of the Manawatu, or the grass lands extending thirty or forty miles on this side of the Taranaki mountain. Mr. Swainson proceeds to say, that — "fern and flax are never touched by any cattle;" and that ' the idea of fern being destroyed by the tread of cattle he considers altogether chimerical.' A statement more utterly at variance with fact could hardly have been made. I have seen cattle feed upon both fern and flax, which they eat freely whenever grass begins to fall short, and npon which they thrive remarkably well; moreover,_so far from fern being " one of the most obstinate of weeds," it gives way much more rapidly, under the bite and tread of cattle," than, from its natural luxuriance might, previously to the obsetvation of the fact, have been anticipated. The reason of which, however, I shall be happy to explain to Mr. Swainson (who has promised us some explanations about grasses) : and also the reason why his experiments towards the extermination of this weed by the plough prove nothing in reference to its destruction by cattle. Of grasses Mr. Swainson says — " the bite of the cattle prevents them from flowering and so producing their full quantity of seed:" now, if the bite of the cattie prevented them from flowering, it would not only prevent their producing, their full quantity of seed, but would effectually prevent their producing any seed at all. But here again, though with " R" I should be loth to put my slight knowledge on these subjects into competition with Mr. Swainson's, I confess I think he has expressed himself hastily. It has frequently been remarked by eminent naturalists, as a wise provision of the Author of Nature, that herbivorous animals select the leaves of grasses, leaving the flowers untouched, where they have a sufficient range of pasture; this fact I have frequently noticed myself, and am surprised it has escaped Mr. Swainson's observation. When speaking of the propagation of grasses by seeds, Mr. Swainson adds — "the only mode by which they can increase," he must intend to limit his remark to certain grasses; otherwise he is not correct. Mr. Swainson in his "Notes" while endeavouring to support his hypothesis — that pastures deteriorate, states — that where two-thirds of a run are occupied with koromiko, that part will be totally destroyed in less than two years ; upon this "R" remarks, that if any settler has chosen such a run, under the impression that the koromiko would be a permanent source of food for his cattle, he suffers from his own i "lack ot sense." Mr. Swainson answers this very just observation by saying, that a settler who is a good judge in these matters has chosen such a run for a temporary purpose, with which he is very well satisfied. I confess this looks very like the " cavilling" of which Mr. Swainson complains. But Mr. Swainson's mode of reasoning is very amusing ; it generally consists of begging the question. Persons choosing cattle runs overgrown with koromiko are charged by "R" with "lack of sense;" to this he replies — " I do not think so, and for this reason, — Captain Rhodes, whom I look upon as a very good judge in these practical matters, has himself done this ; without showing any " Jack of sense !" Again " the Captain I dare say, is very well satisfied with this run, or he would not have selected it!!" In another part of his letter Mr. Swainson says — " to compare the lands of the Hutt with those of Taranaki and of Nelson, and then to say that because the latter are profitable as arable districts, the former should be equally so, implies either f an ignorance or a forgetfulness of the peculiarities of each ;" granted ; but how does this tally with what Mr. Swainson has said a few lines above in the same paragraph; "I must still think that what can be done on the Hutt valley, can be done in every other valley in New Zealand" ! ! ! Really Mr. Swainson ougKt not to complain of the "irksomeness of combating popular errors and popular prejudices" if he endeavours to combat them with such reasoning as this. He must presume largely on the ignorance of his readers, if he supposes they will accept his conclusions merely because they are his, although based on no facts, and unconnected logically even with the assumed ones. In conclusion I beg to express my hope that Mr. Swainson will not attribute these remarks to any" other motive than that of a sincere wish that persons, both in and out of the colony, should not be misled by his well-meant, though inaccurate, observations on New Zealand. ' I remain, Mr. Editor, Your obedient servant,, Z..