Correspondence.

Daily Southern Cross, Volume XI, Issue 723, 2 June 1854, Page 2

Correspondence.

To the Editor of the Southern Cross. Sir, — My Missionary duties having called me to Auckland, I avail myself of the opportunity to request of you the insertion of' the following remarks on the subject.of Piscatoh's letter of the 6th of April. In your comments on the letter, you refer to the "undoubted trustworthy charactci of your correspondent;" perhaps, sir, you would inform me how long your correspondent has been living in an unmarried stato with a half-caste girl, and whether he be now lawfully married to her ? Your answer to these inquiries might probably furnish, the reason wliy the llev. J. Wallis has committed the rmpardonablc offence of not inviting that gentleman to remain a guest and a sojourncr with the Mission family ! Piscator says, "on going into the chapel, &c." I think he is mistaken. I believe he never went into the chapel, and has never attended any of the religious services there. If he had done so, he would have found it a very different place from that he visited, and differently fur- | nished, with pulpit, communion rail, &c. He would have found that it needed repaus, and in his zeal for "religious observances," he might have added his name to the subsciiption list. Those repairs were commenced before the <late of Piscator's letter ; the building was long since divided, and supported by a partition, and it is now being removed and reconstructed on another site. Piscator thinks it wrong that Mr. Wallis's son should be engaged in farming and merchandize. Perhaps he will kindly point out that rule of Scripture, or Religion, or politics, or morality, which requires a Christian Minister to train up his children in indolence rather than to habits of industry. Piscator intimates that Mr. Wallis (rather Mr. Wallis's son) has possession of all the town allotments." Pray, sir, did you consult the surveyors mnp before you printed that statement ? If not, Avill you now do me the favour, and Mr. Wallis the justice to do so, and then print the correction. Also, when you are in the Survey Office, you may ascertain how many of "the best farms he has," the total number of acres, and the relative quality and quantity. And this also you will perhaps do me the favour to print and publish to the world. As to the allegation that Mr. Wallis "has the power of preventing industrious settlers from getting a footing in the district," it is simply ridiculous. Did your correspondent not know, or could srou5 r ou not have told him, that the Government have purch; s:d a large extent of land in that district ? that the Government have sold, and will sell, so whomsoever will buy ? That Mr. Chamberlain has purchased perhaps 2000 acres ? That Mr. Johnson has purchased perhaps 1000, while Mr. Wallis with his five sons hold 588 acres ? And that these purchasers would go and take possession of their lands, thus bought and paid for, without asking Mr. Wallis, or any body else. All this was known to the world, and yet he pens and you print the ridiculous allegation ! ! Equally ridiculous is the charge of "monopoly" ! Pray sir do inform your correspondent that the harbour of Wamgavoa is open from the Ist of January to the 31st of December, that there are no Pilot fees, or Port dues, or other obstruction, and that he may send his ships loaded with merchandize every day in the year to crush this "monopoly." As yet I believe he has never sent a single vessel, or made a single venture, or embarked a single shilling in the trade, and yet he talks of monopoly! And now, Mr. Editor, I have a duty to perform to you. In your remarks on Mr. Atkins letter you have fallen into two errors : Allow me to correct them. Firstly. You take it for granted that Mr. Wallis receives support from Government Funds. He has never received so much as a sixpence either for himself or for his family, or for his station, or for his people. Nor has any other Wesleyan Missionary in the country ever received the smallest amount of pecuniary support from Government Funds. Secondly. You insinuate that Mr. Wallis, or some, or all of the Missionaries arc opposed to, or do oppose the settlement of the country by colonists ! Now, sir, for Mr. Wallis, for myself, and for all my brethren, I boldly meet your accusation with this public denial, and I leave it with you to put that denial in the strongest form the English language will admit of, and moreover I hereby challenge you to the proof of your accusation. No, sir, it has long been our settled, unanimous, and declared conviction that the sooner the land is purchased by Government, and the country filled in the length and breadth of it with British colonists, and the better it will bo for all parlies. Both the Surveyor General and.

the Native Land Commissioner will tell you that our conduct is in accordance with these professions. I remain, &c, John Whiteley, Wesleyan Missionary. Auckland, May 29, 1854. ' P.S. The case of the woman Ramari and the oar-ring on a neighbouring station, has been settled without the investigation Piscator recommends, and without his aid as investigator. It was a purely accidental occurrence, and the best of men are liable to accidents. [In the meantime we can do little more than insert Mr. Whiteley's answer to the allegations of our correspondent " Piscator." We ourselves have no personal knowledge of the matters referred to, and must leave j them to be dealt with by "Piscator," who will no doubt do so satisfactorily, and in his own name, by admitting the erroneousness of his remarks, with an ample apology therefore; or by supporting them — if true — with the proper evidence. Certainly we shall not attempt to support anything untrue ourselves, or permit another to do so through our columns. Mr. ! Whiteley's M.S. affords internal evidence that he is quite aware of the real name of " Piscator ;" indead the latter made no secret of it, and addressed, with his own initials (if we are correctly informed) copies of the paper to the various parties implicated. Our share in the matter arose from its beating upon important public interests, and, provided always our facts were facts, our remarks were both legitimate and necessary. Should the facts prove to bo no facts at all, our conclusions will not follow, and we shall be very sorry indeed for having been the unintentional means ofgiving currency to that which is not true. We cannot avoid expressing surprise at Mr. Whiteley's statement that -no "Wesleyan Missionary in the country ever received the smallest amount of pecuniary support from Government funds." We, in common with the public at large, have always been under the impression that very Imgc simis have been for many years given for Wesleyan support. Indeed, we have even heard mention the very amount — £575 — paid over through the Secretary of the Society, Mr. Buddie, for last quarter alone ! llow is this ? There is great delusion existing somewhere, and the sooner every thing is cleared up the better. Can it be that Mr. Whiteley has raised a quibble upon the manner as to which the Government have paid over the money ? Perhaps it may be that the system of secrecy which, for many years, has so encompassed the Government and their every action, as to give rise not only to all sorts of imaginary reports, but to beget, in the public mind, a too ready disposition to believe in them. Such is the necessary fruit of an irresponsible system of Government, under which we have groaned so long, and fiom which we hope soon to be relieved. — Ed.]