THE LYCEUM SALE.

Evening Star, Issue 7797, 19 December 1888, Page 4

THE LYCEUM SALE.

TO THE KDITOB.

>Sin, —I have no desir* to follow Sir Robert Stout in his homily on Freethought, noither do I wish to discuss such side issues as whether "so long as eociety punishes the Freethinker it encourages hypocrisy." How egotistical and useless it is for him to suggest to Dnnedinites that Freethought has a monopolyof straightforwardness andfreedom of speech, and that orthodoxy means hypocrisy, narrow-mindedness, and being unenlightened ! I do, however, most heartily join with him in the hope "that by this time next century our descendants will be able to give a different account of their fellow-citizens." What is the real matter at issue between us? In my .letter of the Bth I stated certain facts about my purchase of the Lyceum Hall, none of which he disputes. I also said "I was not responsible for the hall being let for Freethought lectures for the next three Sundays." On the 10th Sir Robert Stout says: " Whilst speaking to him of the Lyceum Hall he seemed anxious to know whether the Freethought Association would not, should he become owner, be his tenant for Sunday evenings." On the 11th I distinctly stated I had strongly expressed the opinion that the Freethought Association's connection with the hall had been the cause of its failure, and that "I had no intention of continuing their tenancy." Yet Sir Robert Stout says in his letter of last evening that " I have admitted in my letter that I was desirous to have the Freethought Association for a tenant on Sunday evenings." This I Bay is most unfair and disingenuous in respect to my last letter, and most incorrect as to the facts. I made no overtures whatever to the Freethought Association, or to anyone connected with the Association, to let them the hall on Sundays, and certainly would not have bought it at the price agreed upon if they were to have still occupied it. It was much more in harmony \.'Uh my own views that the hall should be occupied by some religious body on Sundays; and I also knew that the hall could not bo made to pay without the Freethought Association were quite clear of it. Hence 1 made no such overtures as Sir Robert Stout suggests; but, on the contrary, three different religious bodies can vouch that I offered it to them immediately my offer to buy the hall was accepted. However, Sir Robert Stout, Joseph Braithwaite, and Thomas Low are either not able or not willing to complete the gale to me. I understand the two former gentlemen are willing to carry out the contract, but the latter simply aayß " he won't," as he considers he was not properly consulted by his colleagues. One of his colleagues informs me that the real reason is because a higher price has since been offered for the property. -As Sir Robert Stout says last evening "When deeds are valued higher than creeds wc will have true freedom." Evidently "this time is not yet" with members of the Freethought Association.— I am, etc., D. C. Cameron.

Dunedin, December 15,