ORIGINAL CORRESPONDENCE. To the Editor of the New Zealand Spectator. Wellington, March 22.

New Zealand Spectator and Cook's Strait Guardian, Volume III, Issue 172, 24 March 1847, Page 3

ORIGINAL CORRESPONDENCE. To the Editor of the New Zealand Spectator. Wellington, March 22.

Sir, — Had you not introduced Mr. Swainson's letter, which appeared in your paper of the 20th inst., with some prufatory remarks of you i own which seem like an apology to Mr. Swainson for having allowed his " Notes " to be interrupted by other " correspondents," I need not perhaps have troubled you any further; for, as Mr. Swainson no longer defends any of his original statements, nor refutes any of mine, though he endeavours to throw discredit on two of them — with what success I leave to your readers to judge, — but descends— a foiled disputant's last resource — to indulge in personalities and low abuse, I might fairly assume that the question had been decided : but your remarks compel me to continue the subject. I can no longer stand on any ceremony with Mr. Swainson, whose gross ignorance is only surpassed by his consummate vanity, excessive conceit, and scurrilous abuse: — a suspicion that he could possibly be wrong, or that his opponents could possibly be right, seems never to have even entered into his thoughts; ignorance and presumption usually, if not constantly, go together. To show my inaccuracy Mr. Swainson has selected from my letter two statements, — but let us have his own words : " I shall select therefore one or two only for particular notice, from which your readers will have a good idea of the value of the others.'' Mr. Swainson having made his own selection, choosing doubtless where he thought me weakest and himself strongest, has fortunately narrowed the question in dispute, thereby enabling me in few words to expose satisfactorily his ignorance, and enabling your readers to decide for themselves, whether Mr. Swainson's statements or mine are more worthy of credit. What preeminently excites Mr. Swainson's ridicule, and calls forth his first attack, is a remark of mine on an instinct of cattle which leads them to se- ]

lect the leaves, in preference to # the flowers, of grasses. Here his ridicule knows no bounds; but let us hear his own words, for I cannot allow myself to follow his example by giving garbled and perverted extracts ; he says, after many other remarks,—" The discovery, therefore, which Z. has made of his cattle " selecting the leaves, and leaving the flowers untouched, " a/act, which he says, "he has repeatedly noticed," is altogether marvellous. True it is that this cautious observer and profound reason er, as if anticipating the surprise of his country readers, modestly rejects the merit of their discovery. Oh no, it is not his own, for he assures us "it has frequently been remarked by eminent naturalists f" " Having, during the last forty years, written about a score and a half of volumes on such sort of things, I am rather a bit of a naturalist myself, and iherefore may be supposed to know something of what others have written. I must add therefore that I am ignorant of any writer who can compete for the discovery of this fact with Z. Let not his modesty be offended — all the originality is his own." Unparalleled conceit! What I said in my last letter, though ! Mr. Swain son sneers at it, I must repeat here, namely, that "he presumes largely on theigno- , ranee of his readers." My observation in opposition to Mr. Swainson, who had assumed that grasses would not seed in cattle runs, was .this: "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 that it has escaped Mr. Swainson 's j observation." I' confess lam no longer surpris- i ed at it. Now it may be sufficient for the present purpose to quote one authority — I trust a decisive one — to settle this question. In the xx chap, of his Natural Theology, Dr. Paley says, " It is an observation likewise which has often been made, that herbivorous animals attach themselves to the leaves of grasses, and if at liberty in their pastures to range and choose, leave untouched the straws which support the flowers:" he then refers his readers to Withering, a celebrated naturalist, for further information. It may be sufficient for me, who am not even a "bit of a naturalist," to remark, that this work has been during half a century, before the public, — has undergone innumerable criticisms, and has been edited by men of firstrate talents and acquirements, with copiou3 notes, without this passage having ever been called in question. I cannot indeed lay claim to having writji&n " about a score and a half of volumes," but it seems, notwithstanding his contemptuous scorn, I have read with more attention than Mr. Swainson. This settled, I trust to your readers' satisfaction, 1 may safely allow all Mr. Swainson's rhodomontade about my peculiar breed of cattle, which is founded upon it, to pass for what it is worth. I come now to the next subject of his selection. He had stated that *' fern and flax were never touched by any cattle ;" my answer was, 4 ' / have seen cattle feed upon both fern and flax, which they eat freely, whenever grass begins to fall short, and upon which they thrive remarkably well." Mr. Swainson has not bt-en able to advance one word in refutation of this : he has indeed adduced three instances of persons having failed to fatten their cattle in "swamps." but as there is not a syllable in my letter — either expressed or implied — about swamps, I am utterly at a loss to conjecture for what object they were adduced : it would have been as much to the purpose had he brought three instances to prove that eels will not thrive and fatten upon dry land. But to say no more of this specimen of reasoning ; any person of common fairness would have seen, that by my limitation "whenever grass begins to fall short," I did not convey the idea that " fat cattle " should be fed upon flax and fern — much less that they should be driven into a swamp — but that these plants answer the same purpose as wheat, barley, peas straw, &c, do in England under analogous ciicumstances. Mr. Swainson is nettled at my having said that his statements on this subject were "utterly at variance with fact," (which I contend they are,) and accuses me of charging him with "a most abominable falsehood." Does he mean to say that " a statement utterly at variance with fact," and " a most abominable falsehood" are convertible terms? Let it be remembered that this was said in reference to his remarks on facts, which, from his own admission — having never resided in any part of New Zealand out of Port Nicholson — not coming under his own cognizance, he could not profess to give on his own authority, and in which therefore his veracity was not concerned. Does he not know — what every school-boy ought to know — the difference objective and subjective truth — between a verity and veracity — between a statement "at variance with fact" and a falsehood — much more "a most abominable falsehood?" Does he not know that the latter always implies intention to deceive, whereas the former does not ? But what does he know ? — alas ! for the author of about " a score and a half of volumes!" Well might he say " Heu vitam perdidi operose hihil agendo /" I am glad I have not employed my time in the same way. But to proceed. Mr. Swainson says, " They may believe, for aught I care, that Taranaki and Wanganui are valleys like the Hutt, although people say they are plains :" though I have been at both those places, and consequently know more of them than he does, I really have said nothing about their being '* vallie3 :" I, defy him to find any such assertion in my letter. But I cannot stop here, he adds : " Let me do justice, however, to the discoveries of these eminently amusing if not instructive writers and profound reasoners; they are as follows : 1. That as land, requiring £2 an acre to crop, will pay very well, therefore land wanting £8 for the same purpose should also do the same. 2. That the gentlemen settlers in the Hutt are quite mistaken in thinking they are not making fortunes by arable farming. 3. That as cattle thrive ' remarkably well' on fern and flax, all statements which deny this are utterly at variance with fact — in other words, are moat abominable falsehoods. 4. That natural pastures .always improve, because cattle 'select the leave*, of grasses, leaving the flowers untouched.' 5. That the common fern can be eradicated without ploughing." As I informed Mr. Swainson that " R." bad left the settlement, and as he says he has

only " selected" from my numerous mis-state-ments, lam surprised that he should go back to Il.'s letter, especially as he had written one long letter in reply to it — but it would be impossible to follow Mr. Svrainson in all his vagaries ;— I shall confine my remarks to my own letter. His first and second propositions ate not even hinted at in my letter ; his third and fourth I think I have satisfactorily settled above ; the fifth only remains, — upon this I confess I promised Mi. Swainson some information ; I will try to fulfil my promise. Starch is always found in considerable quantity in the roots of fern, hence it may be assumed that it is a condition of their existence, or at least of the proper developement of the plant. But how is this starch obtained by the root of the plant ? Certainly from two sources : but one essential ingredient of starch cannot possibly be obtained by the roots except through the medium of the leaves — I allude to its carbon, and consequently if its leaves are frequently removed in a green state either by the bite of cattle or by cutting, the root will die. But to be more explicit, the carbonic-acid of the atmosphere is absorbed by the green leaves, is decomposed by the plant under the inference of solar light and heat ; the water likewise taken in by the leaves and roots undergoes a similar process becoming decomposed into its elements — oxygen and hydrogen, these unite with the carbon in due proportion to foi m starch, which is secre ted in the root. Surely then these plants cannot exist, if their leaves are cut green, beyond a limited period— a period varying with the tenacity and consequent imperviousness of the soil to the air. Any. attempts to destroy fern, by either burning it off when dry, or ploughing only, unless followed up by some other means, will therefore only prove fruitless. I have now done with the controverted./«e/s.hut I have not quite done with Mr. Swainson, though I scarcely know how to proceed; to dispose of his facts was easy work ; but how to grapple with his slang and abuse is I confess a puzzle: — to be sure there is silent contempt, — but even that won't do, for then others might expect to be let off in the same way. He cen- j sures me for writing anonymously. " Falsehood" says he " may skulk under anonymous signatures," with much to the same effect: but of what importance are names, when the subjects controverted ate such as depend, not on the authority of names, but on indisputable facts and arguments concerning which the public is quite competent to judge? Mr. Swainson doubtless imagines that the weight of his name ought to bear down before it all opposition, and seems irritated at the thought that any writer should have " the effrontery to deny the very statements of the settlers themselves" — that is, his own, (Louis XIV. in a small way — Les trots fiats c'est moi). lam not aware that my name — to those who might be acquainted with it — would be associated with either ignorance of New Zealand, or selfishness, or want of veracity, but be that as it may, your readers I repeat require facts and arguments; non aucloritate sed ratione agendum est. He is puzzled to know who *" this audacious falsifier of facts" can be — "an agent" — ''an official" — or "a dealer in flax," — this last, by the way, is rather amusing, — a dealer in flax encouraging the importation of cattle to run over the flax grounds; what next? — "a fool" — "a rogue" — "a land chanter": — moreover guilty of" detestable selfishness" — " deliberate distortions of truth :" further — "whose object is to let or sell their own or their employers' land." Now I beg to infoim Mr. Swainson (and send you, Sir, my name as a guarantee for my veracity) that i am neither an owner of land or cattle, — that I have no employer whom I wish to serve, and titat I am not in any way interested in this question : I stated before that my object was to prevent his statements misleading persons either in or out of the colony ; but Mr. Swainson will not believe me. Such suspicion is itself suspicious. What can account for his angry and abusive language? I certainly found no difficulty in accounting for the confusion of ideas pervading his letters ; all things have a limit; and surely an intellect which has given birth to " about a score and a half of volumes" may well be expected to have become effete : but what can account for the angry imputation of base, motives to others? Is he himself influenced by any unknown motives? Can he, who begins to throw stones at others, be himself living in a house of glass? I might enquire — but enough, let him go ; if any are henceforward misled by his statements they will only have themselves to blame. But after all Mr. Swainson's .letters — bating the coarse vulgarity quoted above — are very amusing. I uever before read such a jumbling together of heterogeneous, irrelevant, incoherent nonsense; it altogether surpasses Shakspeare]s ideal of a confused statement : I cannot keep his Hottest, Mrs. Quickly, out of my thoughts when I read it. Really if his letters afford your other readers as much amusement as they do me, it would be as well if you could induce him to write an occasional letter as a substitute for some of the extracts from Punch which sometimes occupy your columns. Perhaps I have said enough. Leaving therefore those who are in their second childhood to amuse themselves with nursery rhymes, I continue to subscribe myself, Mr. Editor, Your very obedient servant, Z.