CORRESPONDENCE.

Nelson Examiner and New Zealand Chronicle, Volume VII, Issue 325, 27 May 1848, Page 50

CORRESPONDENCE.

To the Editor of the Nelson Examiner. Sir — I should feel disposed to agree with you in your estimate of Lord Grey's answer to the Bishop's protest, but for one objection ; it is not the truth. His Lordship is dignified in his censure, and polished in his sarcasm ; it ia a pity he is not also correct in his statements. He affirms he has been misinterpreted, and that he had no intention of violating any native rights, "whether established by the treaty of Waitangi, or any other agreement or authority." If so, be has been singularly unfortunate in his language ; since not only the Bishop, but every one who read his despatch, agreed in the samo misinterpretation of it. Your own pages bear record of this in many ways ; amongst which is, I think, a quotation from the London Spectator, observing that his despatch did at least one good in sweeping away "all the treaty of Waitangi nonsense." I cannot therefore think with you, that the justice or injustice of his i recommendations is immaterial to the question. If they involved a gross, and not the less gross because indirect, violation of all previous engagements, I cannot see how the Bishop could refrain from protesting against them. But, say you, we do not object to his protesting, but only to his manner of doing so. This is hardly consistent with your observation that "he had no business to throw the weight of his official character and influence against tbe Government, at whose hands he holds his office," which implies a theory of Episcopal subordination not very much in accordance with the usual tone of your speculations ; but passing this by, lam willing to take the question on the footing you have now placed it, and accept the dilemma, between whose horns you have fixed me. " Has the Bishop fulfilled his threat." I answer, no. Not because he has seen its impropriety, but for the reason which Earl Grey himself assigns, when he says he cannot believe the Bishop would excite the natives to resistance " against the mere expression of an opinion." The protest was against the intention ; the assistance to the natives iv maintaining their rights would only be required when those rights were attacked, which has not yet been tbe case. And what would that assistance be ? "To inform the natives of their rights and privileges as British subjects, to assist them in asserting and maintaining them, whether by petition to the British parliament, or other loyal and peaceable methods." And why would that assistance be given to a people, in the words of Earl Grey, "quick in apprehending and fierce in resenting any supposed violation " of their rights, but for the purpose of showing to that people that other and more peaceable methods existed for tbe preservation of their, rights; and that instead of resorting to violence* and bloodshed to our los 3 and their own destruction, their real and surest protection against, even the despotic mandates 1 of-a Colonial Secretary, would be found in the justice of our Law Courts, and the good faith of our Houses of Parliament. 1 am sir, &c, . » A Looker Oy.