New Zealand Spectator, AND COOK'S STRAIT GUARDIAN. Saturday, April 10, 1847.

New Zealand Spectator and Cook's Strait Guardian, Volume III, Issue 177, 10 April 1847, Page 2

New Zealand Spectator, AND COOK'S STRAIT GUARDIAN. Saturday, April 10, 1847.

Well ! our opponents have not accepted the offer we have made them, and have thus virtually admitted the unfounded nature of their pretensions. They have prudently declined the further exposure of a Public Meeting, and have thereby tacitly relinquished their claim to represent public opinion. But, in the decision of this controversy, the arguments addressed by " An Enemy to Faction" to the calm unbiassed judgments of our fellow settlers have been so conclusive and satisfactory as to render any admission on the part of our opponents superfluous. In a quiet dignified manner the writer has dissected their statements, exposed their fallacies, and by his clear unanswerable reasoning has deduced such irresistable conclusions as to carry conviction to every mind. Never was any answer more triumphant or complete. Never was public opinion so unanimous in its expression on any question. The faction, " blown up with high conceits engendering pride," have shrunk from the Ithuriel touch of truth, disappointed and discomfited — their motives exposed, and their efforts rendered abortive. We may presume that all further hope of attempting to mislead or misrepresent public opinion, by means of another Paper under the control and direction of these blind guides, will for the present at least be laid aside, — they must be content to " wait a little longer," and endeavour to find or make some other grievance. In the mean time the project may be appropriately consigned to that • . " Limbo large and broad, since call'd The Paradise of Fools :" to which, according to the Poet, fleet all unaccoinplish'd works "abortive, monstrous, or unkindly mix'd." But though our opponents have thus been compelled to yield to the force of reason, we do not imagine they will relax their efforts, or withdraw their opposition. It is an infirmity of common minds to hate those whom they have injured, and it is not probable that the bitter spirit of hostility displayed in this correspondence will be softened by exposure, or lessened by the mortification of recent defeat. But we rely with confidence on the good sense and right feeling of our fellow settlers, to which we have not appealed in vain. This controversy has not been of our seeking; our opponents have had every opportunity of stating their objections aad advancing their opinions : these have been answered effectually — conclusively, — and the decision has been unanimously in our favour. We have no desire to indulge in undue exultation; we have appeared simply as the advocates of truth and principle, and our chief cause for rejoicing is that the truth has triumphed. But we have also shewn that we will not allow this journal to be made subservient to any party or factious purpose. Free from any external influence, alike independent of any control on the part of the Government or the New Zealand Company, we have no other aim or object than on all occasions to give an honest and independent expression to public opinion. Our interests are inseparably bound up with those of the settlement, and we look to our fellow settlers only for encouragement and support. This support has been largely given, and our Sub-

scribers are more than ever satisfied that the Neic Zealand Spectator has fully justified its claims to be considered emphatically the Settlers' Paper. We do not pretend to infallibility, and shall always be ready to acknowledge our error when proved to be wrong, but we will never submit to the degradation of being used by any man or set of men as a compliant tool for factious purposes. We take leave of our opponents — to whom perhaps our readers will consider we have given undue importance — more in sorrow than in anger, and hope they will not be offended if at parting we remind them that when they thrust themselves so prominently forward and attempt to call the motives of others in question, their motives and public conduct will be referred to and tested by those " fundamental principles which no community can ever suffer to be violated without degradation to themselves." Since the above was written we have received another letter from A. 0., which, we regret to say, is in the worst possible taste. No new fact, no additional argument is advanced to support his view of the case, but personalities of the most offensive kind are resorted to, which cannot fail to excite disgust against the person using them. Who the author of the letter published in our last number is, may be a matter of conjecture to A. 0., but cannot certainly be known to him. Nothing can justify the course he has adopted, which is the last and worst resource of a defeated opponent.