ORIGINAL CORRESPONDENCE.

New Zealand Spectator and Cook's Strait Guardian, Volume III, Issue 178, 14 April 1847, Page 2

ORIGINAL CORRESPONDENCE.

To the Editor oj the New Zealand Spectator. Wellington, April 12th, 1847. Sir, — I scarcely know how to answer A. O. 'a letter which appeared in your paper of the 10th inst. In my last I explicitly disclaimed any intention whatever of writing with the view of convincing your correspondents ; and T have certainly now no reason for thinking that I could ever convince such a writer as A. O. There is an insurmountable difficulty in dealing with a person so utterly incapable of understanding an argument as he appears to be, because there is no means of convincing him but by argument, and this he cannot understand, as I shall presently shew. To insult your readers by condes-* cending to bandy personalities with such a writer, would tend neither to elucidate the subject, nor to gain me any credit, for I am quite ready to acknowledge my inferiority to him in that art. He dares venture to charge me with having had recourse to personalities ; but I defy him to point out any passage in my letter wherein I have thrown out so much as a hint as to who the authors of the letters I was replying to might be, — and if not, any accusation of my haviug indulged in personalities is a mere abuse of language. He has himself, however, attempted to do so : I shall not follow his example. A He seems mightily annoyed that I should have passed his letter by with the cursory remark that it was stupid, and written in passable Scotch : I am sorry that I cannot estimate his abilities so highly as he himself appears to do ; but I will now endeavour to atone for what he considers my former neglect and take some notice of him. As to any objection to my use of the word stupid when applied to his letter, I can conceive but one, namely, that it was superfluous — a mere truism — what nobody needed to be told. As to my expression — passable Scotch, it was merely used when contrasting it with other letters, one of which was said to be written in bad English, in order to convey my belief that they were written by different authors : but does he question its truth ? I will give some specimens of his language : — !' And for (a ?) long (time ?) was worthy of the name" — " Mr. Editor, — Sir, 1 observe (observed ?) in your Paper of 24th instant, a letter signed " Justitia," and from your leading article I understand (understood ?) that want of time prevented you from replying to the simple questions therein asked, and I expected that you would have found time and space in your next." Again — ' ' Evidently taking it for granted that your columns would (should, or, ought to ?) be closed against stupid," &c. — as he knew that I had already seen the letters, having answered them, he could not mean would. Quid plura ? Will any man in his senses say that these expressions could be mistaken for English? He has accused me of being a "schoolmaster," for remarking incidentally that he wrote in passable Scotch, what will he say now ? He seems to consider a man must be either a " pedant," or a " schoolmaster," or a 1 " lawyer," who does not write nonsense, and in ungrammatical language as he does. It would be very far from my wish to hurt the feelings of any uneducated person who came forward to communicate modestly, and in moderate language, to the Public, any information which he might possess ; but when such a writer as this sets himself up — without the slightest suspicion of that which must be self-evident to every one but himself, namely, his own incompetency for the office — as a leader of Public opinion, fancying that all are to bow to bis decision as to an oracle, and dogmatically beginning three consecutive sentences with — * " I know also," — " I know also," — "I know also," it is absolutely necessary that his ignorance should be exposed. Whatever he may think, it is essential that a leader in politics should be able to prove himself an accurate thinker, but if he be ignorant of the ordinary use of language, this is impossible. I ' should not be at all ashamed of being convicted of being either a "schoolmaster" or a "lawyer;" but I | should be most thoroughly ashamed of writing ungrammatical, incoherent nonsense in a newspaper, thereby rendering myself a laughing-stock to ever j child in the community old enough to read it. What he means by calling me " bigoted" I do not know. I had always conceived that bigotry applied to those who adhered to an erroneous opinion after

its error had been exposed to the satisfaction of all intelligent persons : If Ibe right in this, it may not occasion your readers much trouble to determine whom it may best suit. I must now turn to some more formidable charges* He boldly asserts that "the whole question has been begged" by me, but as he does not attempt to point out a single instance of my having begged the question, I must assume that he is unable to discover one. I now challenge him to produce such an instance (petitio principii) in my argument, promising thatwhenever he shall havedone so, your readersneed never afterwards fear being troubled with any farther communication from me. The next charge is chiefly remarkable for its cool impudence ; it is repeated twice ; — be says — " But he may rest assured that his one-sided statement, based upon the miserable subterfuge of Commissioner Spain's pretended decision, will disappear," &c, and "he boldly asserts that it was settled by the Commissioner," &c. Does he mean to deny the assertion made'by me in my-last letter — that the decision has long since been given ? Does he question the fact of such a decision having been given ? If so, I beg to refer him to the Commissioner's Report to the late Governor, dated March 31, 1845. In his first letter which appeared in your paper, he says he wishes to learn "how, when, and where," "the recent settlement of the land claims," to which you had alluded, took place: in his last letter, after the "how, tohen, and where," he has slipped in the word "investigation." Such legerdemain is rather too clumsy and con-temptible.ij^-I cannot attempt to follow such a writer. Would it have been thought credible, before his last letter appeared, that any person could be so thoroughly stupid as not to perceive, or so doggedly obstinate as not to acknowledge, that the passage in his letter commencing with — " Why has he not sufficient honesty," &c, and ending, with an extract from the Monster Petition, does not in the slightest degree affect my argument ? One portion of that passage — that which refers to Captain Fitzroy's opinion of the expedition toWairau — actually formed part of my own argument, and was expressed almost totidem verbis, when I say, " Whenever it has been necessary to rebut the assertions," &c; and the other portion was twice distinctly noticed, and shown to have nothing whatever to do with the question — to be nothing more than hearsay and extraneous evidence. I have indeed expressed no opinion whatever as to the manner in which the Commissioner proceeded, — as to the " how, when, and where" — (the trivial details which are wont to occupy little minds) — he investigated the Wairau claim, because such an opinion would be wholly irrelevant to the subject, and, coming from an anonymous writer, foolish and absurd. But such reasoning as this is quite beyond his comprehension, and he consequently does, what all ignorant and uneducated persons usually do when they meet with an argument which they can neither understand or refute, — calls it " pedantry" and "special pleading;" I wonder he had not added the other common terms of reproach — logic and philosophy. He tries to misrepresent my argument as opposed to that of the Petition of Nov. 1845, to which I had alluded, because your correspondent "L." had previously done so. He asserts that, I " did not sign that petition," and that I am " a' vindicator of the Fitzroy policy ;" but I defy him to shew one wortl in my letter to justify him in his assertion. He says that I " have not deigned to answer the statements contained in the letters" of your correspondents, and that I might as well not "have noticed them at all." This is rather a curious assertion. How comes it that he has not ventured to attack a single statement contained in my letter ? , I must leave this to your readers to decide upon. I beg to remark, in reference to an observation at the conclusion of his letter, that he can only be acquitted of a deliberate untruth by incurring the charge of presumption in having attempted to surmise who the writer of an anonymous letter might be. Moreover, I will take this opportunity of in- i forming him that he has greatly mistaken his opponent, whoever he may suppose me to be, if he thinks I am to be frightened into silence by any one — more especially by a writer whose pitiable igno- j ranee and bigoted prejudice are displayed in every line. But I ought to apologise to you, Sir, and to your readers, for having dwelt so long on this subject, as I indeed myself feel it a degradation to have been engaged, even for an hour, in criticising the stupid, contemptible trash of this writer. I am, Sir, Your obedient Servant, An Enemy to Faction.

To the Editor of the New Zealand Spectator. Wellington, April 12th, 1847. _ Sir, — Allow me to congratulate you upon the signal victory which has been achieved in the late controversy; truth has been triumphant in this, as I trust it ever will be in controversial encounters. As an instance of the defeat of the Faction, theie can be no stronger proof than the virulent invective in which they have so largely indulged, invariably reSorted to by men whose object has been frustrated, and which was of that questionable character as to commend itself to none, except a few of kindred spirits, as seen in their imperishable productions. I have, at the suggestion of one of your correspondents, reperused these emanations of wisdom, and find not the least remarkable feature is, their coarseness of sentiment and inelegance of expression ; take the gentleman of the genus hog, — how happy in illustration !— but, it may be said, " what can you expect from a pig but a grunt." From the fiist production to, the last their presumption has only been equalled by the Three Tailors who, on memoria'izing the Legislature, commenced their petition, "we, the people of England" " We" and "they" are with them common expressions, meaning the settlers ; but as they have shrunk from testing the merits of their case by a public meeting, their presumption can only be familiarized with, that of the Tailors. I am, Sir, Your obedient servant, Fair Play.

[The following is from " A Subscriber," whose former communication was described by " An Enemy to Faction" as being wri - ten in very bad English.— Ed. N. Z. £.] To the Editor of the New Zealand Spectator. Sir, — I refrained from replying to your correspondent •' An Enemy to Faction " last week ,

.thinking that he in a second letter, or some other party, would on Saturday furnish information on, or some alleged refutation of, such of the points mooted by what you are pleased to term the "faction," as were left untouched on the Wednesday. As this was not done, — and you consider the answer given by your correspondent satisfactory and complete, you will, | perhaps, allow me to offer some observations J upon the declamatory defence of your position by "An Enemy to Faction," notwithstanding your song of triumph has been sung, and you have taken your le<ive of your opponents. I shall be brief, for no elaborate arguments are required for my purpose. I shall not plead that your correspondent's or your own knowledge of 'he subject J^Fniall, to do so he deem a rudeness, nor that your perception of the truth is indistinct — that he might consider uncourteous. I will not charge you with having adeli--cient capacity for exercising an impartial judgment — that possibly would be impertinent, much Jess, Sir, I will reprove either of you with being wanting in all such qualities and airogate the possession of them to myself and the "faction " alone, — for were I to do that, I should, on reflection, feel that I was inflated with a morbid sir oracle-like self sufficiency, which I should fear my fellow settlers of common sense would consider indecorous, nay, truly contemptible and disgusting. But; since, " Where the pause is test There reason wills the heart should be as good," I will proceed to notice without loss of temper, the use of abuse, the arguments ot your cox-res-pondent which you consider so triumphant and conclusive, passing by as irrelevant the facetious or pedantic porti ns of his letter. The first charge brought against the Governor he says is, that his late pui chase of the Wairau district was unnecessary, inasmuch as it had been previously satisfactorily purchased. Your correspondent's perception of truth may be distinct, «— but here it is a little r at fault, — if he will look through the letters of the "faction" again he will find no such charge. — The charge is that Mr. Spain having decided the New Zealand Company's claim to the Wairau district on the exparte evidence of Rauparaha and Rangihaeata, and the Governor having promised that the matter should be enquired into , — he, the Governor, has concluded the purchase of the district from the natives without any further investigation info the rights of the Company. If your correspondent will reperuse the Monster Petition, he will find it asserted and reasserted that it was probable the district in question was . fairly and knowingly sold — he will find too that " actual use and eivjosment" is there acknowledged to be the only title to land in the natives. There is little inconsistency or faction then in such of the settlers who signed that document being unwilling to retract the opinions they held when they signed that document, before sufficient information be afforded them to convince them that those opinions were wrong. To meet the next charge, — that the price paid was excessive, he brings forward the purchase of Otakou. Iti this he reminds me oi an unwary lawyer who quotes a case where the decision was doubtful law— could only stand on the peculiar circumstances of that individual case — and, (he principles on which it was decided had long since been ovei ruled and declared bad. The Otakou purchase was made under the superintendence of Government officers while Captain Fitzroy was Governor,* and George Clarke, Chief Protector, (whose duty Loid Grey has said was to extort the highest possible price for unoccupied land.) It was assented toby the Company's Agent, not because he believed it just, but because he was compelled to pui chase at any rate, — a body of settlers for the locality being then expected, and because he could not help it. Your correspondent may with equal force and justice declare that Capt. Giey may act over again all the mad follies of Capt. Fitzioy, because he has a precedent for so doing in his predecessor's acts.' It must be remembered diso that Lord Stanley was at that time Colonial Secretary, and as your correspondent claims for himself a greater knowledge of the whole subject than he allows to the "faction," he cannot be unaware of how that nobleman's principles we r e viewed by the House of Commons in 1844, nor what are the views on the subject of the present Colonial Secretary, Lord Grey. In case however he should have inadvertently forgotten them I will refer him to the Report of the Committee of the House of Commons in 1544 on New Zealand affairs, and to the speech of Lord Grey, then Lord Howck, in the debate in June, 1845, on the same subject, (pages 134, 135, and 137, of the coirected edition of the Report), and paiticularly would I draw his attention to this passage "every shilling which instead of being thti3 employed" (in public works) "was wasted by giving it to the natives for what to them was of no value, was a shilling withdrawn from objects that might be beneficial to the native and the settler." I will also remind him of the opinion ot Lord John Russell, the present Premier, on the subject of a native title to waste land. He will find it in the same debate, pages 220 and 221 of the above-named edition — to meet the question, then, of your opponents as to the title of the Ngatitoas to the districts they have sold and the excessive price with the answer your correspondent has put forward, — ushered though it is, by his arrogant claim for knowledge of the subject — perception of truth — capacity for exercising an impartial judgment and more such bombast — convicts himself of indulging in what he aitributes to others, viz., "puerile frivolities." As to the third charge, your correspondent says, if there is any foice in this objection it must apply equally to all agreements with the natives, and altogether preclude the possibility of any settlement of these questions. He is right, the objection does apply to all contracts with the natives where money or goods is to be given to them, the character of the present generation is too well known to hope otherwise. Hear what even their own Protector said of them in January, 1843: — "'Since the establishment of her Majesty's sovereignty in these islands, new and almost unheard-of claimants among the natives tfre coming forward grounding their titles to lands from which they had been driven by their more powerful neighbours many years age, and knowing that some of these lands have been sold by their conquerors, they are now

putting in claims to them which has created great confusion^both among Natives and Europeans and in some instancpsled to serious quarrels amongst both parties," again, " the conduct of the natives in the investigation of land claims has caused a great alienation of feeling between the parties, and a disposition in some cases has been manifested to get returned to them lands which they formerly sold." What I have already said will equally serve for your correspondent's observations on the charge that the district miglit have been taken without purchase. I can but smile at his squeamishnesS about thp principles of highwaymen, had that district been so occupied, when he is contending for the validity of a title grounded on the principles of murder and extermination. My letter has, I fear, exceeded reasonable limits, I will therefore reserve any observations on the other points discussed by your correspondent for another number of your paper. I am, Sir, Youi obedient servant, A SuBSCniBER.

Military Inspection. — The half-yeaily inspection of the 58th regiment, stationed at Parr-unatta, took place yesterday, at the upper Barracks, by His Excellency Sir Maurice O'Connell, when upwards of 40 of those who suffered at New Zealand were invalided.