ORIGINAL CORRESPONDENCE. FACTS FOR THE FACTIOUS.

New Zealand Spectator and Cook's Strait Guardian, Volume III, Issue 179, 17 April 1847, Page 2

ORIGINAL CORRESPONDENCE. FACTS FOR THE FACTIOUS.

To the Editor of the New Zealand Spectator. Wellington, April 15th, 1847. Si'?, — Please to introduce in your next paper the following facts for the Factious .• When Governor Grey arrived in New Zealand in Nov. 1845, the whole colony was in a state of disorganization. Its finances had been tampered with by his foolish predecessor until we were all bankrupt, — the staple currency was in diity bits of paper, which every one felt disgraced in handling. We had played at hop, skip, and jump from customs duties to free trade, and back again with the celerity of mountebanks; and, as a natural result of such insane freaks of Government, the colony was saddled with a debt of some £75,000 ! ! ' The Maories, the pets of the late Governor, kicked at his misplaced fondness for them. ISTumbers in all parts of the islands were suspicious, disaffected and on the verge of rebellion. Many were openly at war. Three times had they defeated and laughed to scorn the attempts of the soldiers and settlers to reduce them to .obedience, and scores of our brave defenders lay dead on the field, a sad monument of the incapacity of him who held the reins of Government. Scarcely seventeen months have elapsed since Captain Giey made his appearance, and behold the difference! Peace re-established on a firm basis ; the Maori learning again to respect the Pakeha; confidence and hope taking the place of distrust and anxious uncertainty; the coffers of the Treasury regularly replenished through the increased and increasing amount of customs duties, which a revived trade enables the colonists to pay — for if I mistake not, Wellington alone is now paying as much into the Treasury as the whole colony did some eighteen months back; roads opening up the country in every direction, adding to the security and future advancement of the colony; and all but the idle and improvident appear to prosper. Look on that picture and on this ! And all owing to our good Governor Grey ! Why, Sir, none but the most pigheaded (pardon me, it is their own simile) would cavil at such a Governor, and try to thwart him But shall we allow this miserable tail of a faction to influence us ? By no means ! Toss up your caps, fellow settlei-s, — hurrah for Governor Grey ! Three times three, and one cheer more ! Hurrah ! I remain, Sir, Your obedient servant, A Friend to Good Government

To the Editor of the New Zealand Spectator. Wellington, April 15th, 1847. Sir, — I was lately suspected by one of your correspondents of being a *' schoolmaster" or a "lawyer," I am quite sure " Subscriber" will not incur the suspicion of being either: it is only by courtesy that the jargon in which he writes can be called English ; but even his ignorance of language seems exceeded by his ignorance of law. I cannot indeed profess to understand every one of those promiscuous accumulations of words which he takes the liberty to substitute for sentences; but I can see sufficiently through the dim haze of words to perceive that every argument of my letter has been evaded. It would have been merely straight forward on the part of " Subscriber," had he made some apology to your readers, before he again intruded himseU' on their notice, for the glaring misstatement of a fact, pointed out by me in your paper of the 7th instant, in reference to his assertion that the Governor had given "ten times" more for land than what had previously been thought sufficient. But, by the way, he defends the fact itself, namely, the high price given for Otakou, somewhat oddly — at least for one who talks about " an unwary lawyer." His argument amounts to this ; — that in J844 settlers being expected out immediately (which settlers, by the bye, though three years have since elapsed, we have heard nothing more about), it was necessary that land should be obtained at any price ; that under such pressing circumstances, whether it might or might not, at some subsequent period, be brought forward as a precedent for demanding a "high price for land," it was a case ot — I use his own words — " could not help it," " fundamental principles" must give way — necestita* non habet legem; but

that when settlers have been in the country waiting— those of Wellington seven £»»- those of Nelson fi ve,-to he put in P^io ' °{ landwhiehtbeyhadpureW^ as well be kept waiting still for an indefinite tune Or in other words, when more land is tobe brought into the market, it is to be obtained at any sacrifice of principle or money 5 but when settlers, who have long since paid for their lands, wish to obtain them, they are to be told of the sacrifice of principle and money, and of the pernicious consequences likely to ensue. Is this realty the tw-.ddle which this writer about an "unwary lawyer" fancies will be mistaken for argument ? I must apologise to your readers for noticing a part of his letter, which has no relevancy •whatever with the main question, but which he has introduced among the other curiosities which it contains. He says, that I cannot be unaware how Lord Stanley's conduct was viewed by the House of Commons in 1844. I am not, I confess, aware of any opinion having been expressed by the House during that year; but I am aware that when Mr. Buller^ in 1845, brought before the House the resolutions of the Select Committee of the previous year, conveying by a sidewind a censure on his conduct, they were rejected by a large majority . He himself then seems ; to be the person who "' has inadvertently forgotten the circumstance." Perhaps he would do well to take care of his own memory, and not trouble himself about mine. Does this writer, who compares me to an "unwar}' lawyer" mean, when he talks of a decision being over-ruled, that the opinion of Lord John Russell or Lord Grey, or any other member of Parliament — as such, is of any legal authority whatever? Or, when he quotes an opinion of Mr. Spain's, contained in the Monster Petition, does he venture to assert that his opinion — as such, is of any value on a point of law? This writer must have a curious notion of law. But I assume that, by this time, what he pleasantly calls the " Faction," may have among them a lawyer — a legal adviser ; if so, perhaps he will, without wandering to all sorts of subjects, give an answer to this plain question : Could the Governor legally set aside the Commissioner's decision on the Company's claim to the Wairau district? Will any la%er in Wellington stake his professional reputation on an answer to this question in the affirmative? It not, why endeavour to mystify the subject by mixing it up with other questions? I should much like an answer to this question, and probably your readers would also. Much has been said about the Monster Petition. Are your readers generally aware that that Petition was signed and sent to England before the Commissioner's decision on the Wairau claim was made public? In reference to the Company's claim to Wairau, one of his assertions is — "The Governor having promised that the matter should be enquired into :" he has been at the trouble of giving some references on irrelevant subjecis. will he now oblige me by giving a reference to any document wherein I may find this promise of the Governor's : otherwise he must lie under the imputation of having stated what he cannot substantiate. He asserts also that I am " contending for the validity of a title gounded on the principles of murder and extermination." to this assertion I beg to give the most unqualified and unequivocal contradiction, and withal to express my utter contempt for a writer who could so grossly deviate from truth. I am informed, Sir, that another letter, which T have not seen, coming'from a new correspondent, has appeared in another paper. Where is " Justitia," the leader of the party ? Why does not the acknowledged head either refute my arguments, or allow that he cannot do so ? I fear I shall weary your readers by. replying to these letters one by one. I am, Sir, Your obedient servant, An Enemy to Faction.

To the E.litor of the New Zealand Spectator. Wellington, April 16th, 1847. Sir, — Since forwarding to you my letter of yesterday's date, I have seen the letter in the Independent signed " A Friend to Faction." I beg to avow myself the writer of the letter signed "An Englishman." I have long since done so to several friends. Though written very hastily and altogether unrevised, I never have been and never shall be ashamed of that letter. But an intense love of justice for its own sake, and its determined advocacy under whatever circumstances, are what vulgar minds cannot appreciate. All the positions defended in that letter I am prepared to support from the highest authorities on constitutional law. I mentioned my authorship of that letter to the writer who has now disclosed it, under a promise that it should not be divulged. He may perhaps retort that it was already known to many — be it so, but the word of a gentleman is inviolable. Whether or not he has raised himself in the opinion of any by this act, I know not; but he has irretrievably degraded himself in mine. He may now, if he pleases, take his revenge by publishing to the world what has fallen from my lips while conversing with an enemy in the garb of a friend. Your readers will now understand my motives for declining to take any notice of a letter containing a tissue of unfounded assertions and misrepresentations, or of a writer who has, to say the least, violated the ordinary usages of civilized society. I must now excuse myself from continuing to to take any part in a controversy into which I reluctantly entered, — but not until four violently factious letters had appeared in four successive numbers of your paper. I wished to confine myself to argument; but personalities have been introduced by others. Personalities would scarcely have been resorted to, had arguments been deemed sufficient. My first letter in your paper of the 7th instant, still appears to me unanswered : I am not aware that any one of my arguments contained in it has been weakened — much less refuted. It would be mere affectation on my part to profess ignorance of the writer in question; should it however prove that he is not the actual writer, it cannot, that I am aware of, materially affect what I have said. I now subscribe myself for the last time, An Enemy to Faction.