NEW ZEALAND SPECTATOR AND Cook's Strait Guardian. Wednesday, Makch 29, 1854.

New Zealand Spectator and Cook's Strait Guardian, Volume IX, Issue 908, 15 April 1854, Page 2

NEW ZEALAND SPECTATOR AND Cook's Strait Guardian. Wednesday, Makch 29, 1854.

We have extracted from the Lyttelton

Tzmes of April Bth a letter addressed to the Editor of that journal by Mr. E; G. Wakefield 1 attacking the Wellington papers, — the Spectator and Independent. Our contemporary appends a courteous n6te apologizing for the publication of the letter, which he leaves to be answered by tho.se to whom it particularly refers* We dare say our readers will derive as much amusement from the perusal of the letter as it has afforded ourselves; it is another contribution by Mr. Wakefield to the collection, commencing with that to <{ my dear Dr. Featherston," (how long did that eternal friendship last) and including the more heavy productions to " my Lord Duke," which at different times he has put forth on New Zealand affairs during his residence in the colony. How many of these, if it were possible, he would recall or modify we care not to decide, we shall merely confine' our present remarks to the letter before us so far as his statements affect this journal. ... "V^akefield is in search of sympathy, he -sighs for those friends of humanity who long te to hear his pitiful story," he undertakes to be the true exponent of political opinion in this community ; neither of the newspapers, he* says, are at all to be believed or depended on, they are only employed in abusing each other, in keeping alive old jealousies and hatreds that would otherwise die out. — without any reference to, or discussion of, the current topics that occupy men's minds. This is the key note of his letter, this caution he continually reiterates ; " Let me assure you," he repeats over and over again, *' you cannot believe a word they say — lam the person to be trusted ; you may confide implicitly in all that I tell you." The politicians of Wellington, according to him, are all of one mind, and now they do agree, he assures *us, their unanimity is wonderful. But we think it will readily be admitted that Mr. Wakefield falls into the .same fault which lie conaemns in the Independent, he invents his facts, or represents them through a false and distorted medium. It may be true enough that the Independent is always abusing this journal, but what then — as far as we are concerned, we seldom take thelroable to read, much less condescend to reply to, anything the Inidepextdent.p^s $Jxa,t-ha^any xp£ezence_ to ourselves. Equally untrue are his other assertions with reference to the Spectator as will be sufficiently obvious to our subscribers and "constant readers." The subjects under discussion in the Spectator have usually been those suggested by the passing events of the day, and we verily "believe if Mr. Wakefield were to .append a postscript it would be found to be the most important part of his letter, and would unsay — as far as we are concerned — very much of what he had previously written. His letter, liowever, is a sufficient answer, if any were required, to the foolish assertions continually made by the Independent, of this journal being under the control of Mr. Wakefield, while he must himself admit he has ever received fair play at our hands. Whenever we have differed frtm liiin we have freely expressed our opinion as we do now, and should not hesitate to do on any future occasion that might seem to require it; on the other hand his speeches either in the Council or elsewhere, have generally been faithfully reported in the Spectator, and his opinions on public questions have received from xfs-all th,e weight to which they were entitled'whenever they appeared calculated to advance the interests of the colony. For the rest we may safely leave Mr. Wakefield's letter to pass for what it is Tvorth ; — to be read, to be laughed at, and to be speedily forgotten.

In the short notice announcing the arrival of, the Government Brig, in our last number, we regret to find we have been led intd an error in stating a purchase had been made of two blocks of land at Otago, which we hasten to correct. Our- informant (a passenger by the Brig) referred to the purchase recently made outside the Canterbury Block, but inadvertently reported it to have occurred at Otago, Whence the mistake.