Our correspondent does not dispute tho legality of the rate. He admits that, though aa injustice, it is a legalised Injustice. Yet ho maintains that the settlers nre entitled to resist it. Wo oannot see how he makes out his plen. His argument amounts to nothing more thnn this, that the "Wnitara settlers were not coLSulted an to whether they would be rated or not, that they do not benefit by the expenditure on the New Plymouth harbour, and that therefore they ou^ht to be taxed for it. This, he sije, is quite « ; different case from Wellington and tho tea duty which is being levied to provide subsidies to local bodies — the case which, in onr former article, we cited, ns analogous to that of Waitura. and the harbour rate. Bat, upon bis own showing, it is not different at all. Tho Wellington people were not consulted as to being taxedon their tea for subsidies to local bodies. They do not benpfit by the expenditure of the subsidies. Therefore they object very strongly to the tea duty. Only nt thin point comeß the difference. The Wnitara settlers assemble in publio meeting nnd resolve to resist the law, to go into rebel lion, to shed blood, if need be, Tather than pay the rate. The Wellington people, and 1 all other rational and law abiding people in the colony, pay tho tea duty, cursing it and its aatuors ths while, and looking to constitutional means to get it repealed next year. We strongly recommend the Waitara settlers to behave in this matter, as they have hitherto behaved in all other matters, like good citizens and men of sense. Their threats of rebellion only make them laughed at and alienate all sympathy from them.
THE LONDON MURDERS.
