Kororika, and something has been whispered about school, is being established. I do not know the particulars, but as the matter is one of public interest, I claim a place in a public Journal for two or three remarks.

Whatever it may be judged to be by outward appearance, I am included in the number of those persons who most decidedly object to the addresses of the ministers of religion. I can offer reasons at length another time, if required. At present I will only say, that as those salaries are provided out of a revenue raised by Taxation which is altogether irrespective of religious sects, that no part of such religionists can be entitled in equity to appropriate to itself a portion of such revenue. The benefit must be equally enjoyed by all sects or none, for the State is not a competent judge of the question, which is the true religion, and, therefore, cannot justly favor one more than another. But the benefit could not be equally extended to all, for the revenue would not be sufficient. And if it were, I know there are some sects who believe that such support is contrary to religion, and therefore could not ask for it. If persons holding this opinion conscientiously be charged, through taxation, with religious expenses of this sort, it becomes a Tax upon conscience, and is, in my view, unquestionably wrong.

On these grounds I most decidedly hope that this mode of supporting religion, will never be commenced in this new Colony. I might add a word about the improbability of the requisition. I believe the Government will not countenance it for various reasons. And I think Sir George Gipps will not countenance it, for his views, I suspect, are approaching the right on that point. And might I not add some further inquiry as to the policy of asking the aid of Sir George Gipps, when it is the universal wish that his influence here should cease altogether?

It strikes me, too, that many would sign such a document, because it costs them nothing, who would not contribute one farthing to the support of a minister themselves. What are the natures of such persons, worth in density?

I believe the people are perfectly able to support a clergyman, and they are disgraced by not doing it if they approve him in his ministrations. As to a School on a comprehensive plan, there is no question of its necessity, and it is the duty of Government to see the thing established. This is a matter of political as well as moral necessity, and should come under State control. I am, &c.,

SIMPLEX.

Shipping Intelligence.

ARRIVED.

Oct. 9.—The schooner "Dolphin" from bound over to stand trial for piracy. As the whole of it has not been sent to us, we are not able to publish it.

By private letters, we learn that the "Caroline" from Hobart Town may be daily looked for.

HOKIANGA.

Arrived.

Sept. 25.—Barque "Harvest Home," Captain Tardy, from the Bay of Islands.

25.—Schooner "Flying Fish," Captain Painter, from the Bay of Islands.

Oct. 10.—The "Skerne" for Sydney.

Departure expected at that date, the "Atlantic."

Shipping in Hokianga Harbour when our Correspondent wrote.

Barque "Cecilia," loading for Launceston.

Barque "Atlantic" do.

Barque "Bengal Merchant" do. for Sydney.

Barque "Harvest Home" do. for Port Phillip.

OFFICIAL CORRESPONDENCE RELATIVE TO NEW ZEALAND.

(South Australian Record, April 18, 1840.)

The official correspondence with the Secretary of State relative to New Zealand, is now before us, is of very great importance, not only to the interests of New Zealand, but to the whole system, or rather the constitution, of British colonization.

It is with some surprise that we learn from this correspondence this very important fact; the right of Great Britain to sovereignty over New Zealand has never been asserted by the Colonial Government. Nay, it is asserted in the most positive terms by Lord John Russell, that such a right has not only never been claimed, but has been positively repudiated and rejected. In a memorandum, dated March 14, 1840, and sent by the Colonial Secretary of State, through Mr. Stephen, to Mr. Backhouse, Lord John tells us that:

"The answers made by foreign nations to such claims of right are two: first, that the British statute book has in the present century, in three distinct enactments, declared that New Zealand is not a part of the British dominions; and secondly, that King William IV. made the most public, solemn, and authentic declaration which it was possible to make, that New Zealand was a substantive and independent state."

The recognition by the King, Lords, and Commons of Great Britain of the fact that New Zealand is not part of the British dominions; will be found in the statutes 57 Geo. III. cap 53, sec. 1, and 9 Geo. IV. sec. 4. The following are extracts from each of those statutes:

"The Act 57 Geo. III. cap. 53 is entitled, 'An Act for the more effectual punishment of murders and manslaughters, committed in places not within His Majesty's dominions.' It sets forth 'Whereas grievous murders and manslaughters are committed by persons subject to His Majesty, or to any European state, if such offences were committed by British subjects.'

"The statute 2nd Geo. IV. cap 83, sec. 4, repeats the enactment in the same words, adding, say, that the punishment of the offence shall be the same as if the crime had been committed in England."

The recognition by King William IV. of New Zealand as a substantive and independent state, is shown by the following:

"On the 16th November 1831, a letter to King William IV. from thirteen of the Chiefs of New Zealand was transmitted to Lord Goderich, praying the protection of the British Crown against the neighbouring tribes, and against British subjects residing in the islands.

"On the 14th June, 1832, Lord Ripon dispatched Mr. Busby, as British Resident, partly to protect British commerce, and partly to repress outrages of British subjects on the Natives. His Lordship sent with Mr. Busby a letter to the Chiefs, in which the King was to address them as an independent people. Their support was requested for Mr. Busby, and they were reminded of the advantages and benefits which they would derive from the friendship and alliance of Great Britain.

"In the month of June, 1832, a Bill was brought into the House of Commons, for the prevention of crimes committed by His Majesty's subjects in New Zealand and in other islands in the Pacific ocean, not being within His Majesty's dominions. The bill was rejected, because parliament could not lawfully legislate for a foreign country."

"On the 13th of April, 1833, the Governor of New South Wales, in obedience to Lord Ripon's orders, addressed instructions to Mr. Busby, in which New Zealand was expressly mentioned as a foreign country, and Mr. Busby himself as being accredited to the Chiefs. That document throughout recognizes the independence of New Zealand."

"On the 24th of April, 1834, General Bourke transmitted to Lord Stanley a proposal from Mr. Busby for establishing a National Flag for the Tribes of New Zealand in their collective capacity, and advised that ships built in the island, and registered by the Chiefs, should have their registers respected in all intercourse with British possessions. Sir R. Bourke reported that he had sent three patterns of flags, one of which had been selected by the Chiefs; that the Chiefs accordingly assembled with the commanders of British and three American ships, to witness the inauguration of the flag, at which the officers of H. M. S. 'Alligator' were present. The King had been declared to be the National Flag of New Zealand, and he had been saluted as such by the 'Alligator,' a British ship of war."

"On the 21st December, 1834, a dispatch was addressed to Sir R. Bourke by...