THE RECENT THEOLOGICAL DEBATE.

Press, Volume L, Issue 8478, 9 May 1893, Page 2

THE RECENT THEOLOGICAL DEBATE.

TO THE EDITOR O* THE PSES3. Sib, —Since my motives and actions as one of the participants in this debate are ! being grossly misunderstood and sjiarepreisented, will yotr kindly allow mc to briefly explain why I lett the platform on the last evening of it before Mr Collins had finished speaking? The simple facts are these— When Mr Collins sent mc a written challenge to debate with him, I wrote him that; I would accept his challenge "provided," among other things, "weboth sign rules preventing personalities and abusive language." Mr Collins replied, «'I am glad you suggest provision for preventing abusive language. There will be no difficulty on my part." On conference with Mr Collins it was agreed that I should draw up the roles and regulations of the debate. Among these rules there were three that read as follows :—I. " In case a dispute arises respecting the ruling of the Chairman, the point in dispute shall be referred to the Committee for final decision." 2. " Each, speaker shall, as far as possible, avoid all personal references calculated to give offence to bis opponent." 3. "No new matter shall be introduced in the final negative of each proposition." These rules were signed by both debaters in the presence of the Committee, Mr Collins offering no objection, and then placed in the hands of the Chairman of Committee. These rules were laid before the Chairman of the debate, and hence he was folly acquainted with them. On the last evening of the debate, Mr Collins having objected to the Bible because of difficulties in the genealogies of Jesus, I read Darwin's " Genealogy of Man," which Mr Collins readily accepts, notwithstanding it contains greater difficulties than the genealogy of Matthew and Lake. In his I reply, instead of dealing with the i proposition in hand. Mr Colline went back to the first proposition, •aid tried to explain away Darwin's statement respecting the origin of life. In my next speech I pointed out that the iatro-

daction of Darwin on the origin of life was ont of place, seeing that was not the point we were then debating. In Mr Collins closing speech he spoke of my " impertinence" , in objecting to Darwin when I had introduced Sim myself. Having stood ueveral offensive expressions and allusions from Mr Collins, I then called the Chairman's attention to the objectionable language, bat as he took no notico of it 1 rose and objected on the ground—First, that I did not introduce Darwin in that proposition on the origin of life ; and secondly, the word " impertinence " was a violation of one of the rules of the debate, In the confusion my points seemed to be misunderstood, and the Chairman ruled in favour of Mr Collins. I quietly submitted to this ruling, notwithstanding its injustice. Mr Collins then introduced three new points, namely, Jesus being lost at Jerusalem, cursing the fig tree, and the destruction of the swine. I again asked the Chairman to stop him, as I had no chanoo of reply. Aβ he refused to do so I rose and pointed out that new matter had been introduced to which I had no reply. The Chairman violated another rule of the debate iv ruling in favour of Mr Collins. I then appealed to the Committee in as respectful manner as possible, stating that according to that ruling a hundred new points might be introduced to which I would have no reply. The Chairman instantly rose and said that notwithstanding any decision of the Committee he would adhere to his ruling. Now, seeing all the Committee were not present, and tla; three of the rules of the debate and the Committee itself were wilfully repudiated, I feit it my duty to turn my back on euch outrageous and lawless conduct, having finished my part of the debate. None of these rulings of the Chairman were approved of, except by Mr Collins' own friends: and nearly all the Christian element showed their disapproval of them by leaving the hall when I left the platform with my Committee. Mr Collins introduced the same new matter in our Sydney debate, and having a Chairman of the Freethinkers' own choosing—a Unitarian preacher whose audiences were largely made up in his church of Freethinkers, who worked hand in glove with them, and who was a notorious enemy of myself and of Christianity generally—of course he decided with Mr Collins. But his conduct was severely condemned by everyone present except the Freethinkers. Of the good qualities of Mr Tanner's Parliamentary work, of which some of your correspondents have written I know nothing. But one thing I do know, namely, that in this debate he showed partiality, ignored the rules which he was placed in the chair to uphold, and thus proved his utter incompetency to preside over such a meeting. It was his conduct that caused mc to leave the platform ; and the statement that this protest was planned ia equally false with many other things that Mr Collins , friends are circulating about the debate.

It seems to mc that some people can not distinguish between a well conducted debate and a Spanish bull tight. lam always well pleased to engage in the former, provided I have a worthy opponent ; but on the latter I shall always turn my back.—Yours, &c, J. F. Floyd, Dunedin.