REV. MR. WILLIAMS AND THE SYNOD.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXII, Issue 10008, 20 December 1895, Page 4

REV. MR. WILLIAMS AND THE SYNOD.

In his letter in another column the Rev. W. J. Williams traverses our criticism of the recent proceedings of the Wesleyan Synod re the C.D. Act. We recognise the justification of his doing so, and accept the expression of his opinions with respect. Mr.Williams seems to complain that the speech of Mr. Prime was reported in our columns more fully than those of the speakers 011 the opposite side. But does our correspondent not see a reasonableness in this, where a single speaker had to maintain the whole of the argument on one side against the views of the twenty-four members or so on the other; and that the instincts of the reporter guided him rightly in a matter within the sphere of his discretion To insinuate that this very natural occurrence was an intentional misrepresentation on our part is not worthy of Mr. Williams. With reference to the question whether other members of the Synod, lay or clerical, had as intimate an acquaintance as Mr. Prime had, with the condition of things in Auckland—of the class in question—we can only say that those who spoke had not; nor among the list of those present do we recognise anyone that had the opportunities which have fallen to the lot of Mr, Prime as a magistrate and a Mayor and member of the City Council brought into immediate contact with administration dealing practically with this class of business and over a particular period of time. Resides, if there were, any there they did not exhibit the moral courage of which we spoke, but kept their thoughts to themselves and quietly drifted with the tide. There is a good deal of that sort of thing in connection with this unpleasant question. Mr. Williams claims that we are dealing with Acts that apply to the whole colony, and which have to be judged otherwise than from a local standpoint. But our j business is to judge them from a local standpoint, and as to their applicability to our particular circumstances, because i: 1 I his way we can base our judgment on accurate information, instead of being bewildered by the wild conflict of evidence imported into the controversy elsewhere. Mr. Williams refers to the C.D. Act as essentially " immoral" and in doing so implies the common charge made in this controversy, that those advocating the restraint of vice on the lines of these Acts favour immorality. Now, let us come to close quarters on this aspect of the question. lie assumption is that the suppression of this disease would make it safe to sin, and that the existence of the disease acts as a deterrent. Let us assure Mr. Williams, from an experience of the world and the men in it, which does not como to ministers surrounded by the hallowed atmosphere which they ordinarily breathe, that among those whose inclinations prompt them so to sin, there is not one that cares a pinch of snuff for the risk involved. There is but little risk, if any, if the sinner only troubles himself about it, and it is only sheer indifference to consequences that brings the punishment which Mr. Williams assumes to be deterrent. If the disease were absolutely driven from the country, it is doubtful ii the fact would make one additional sinner. Any way, it is certain that the risk of it does not make one sinner the less, The abounding prevalence of the sin, at the time when the malady is most prevalent, bears the proof of this on the face of it, It is in the nature of this sin to so paralyse the moral sense that a man does not heed consequences, as may bo seen from the indifference with which it is communicated to pure and innocent people, with the clear knowledge— if thought at all is given to it—of the horrible results, extending even to the innocent children yet unborn. Let not Mr, Williams suppose for one instant that those trying to put restraint on this affliction are not as keenly alive as himself to the evil of the practices that are the cause of its propagation. If lie or anyone can devise a way by which these evil practices can be absolutely stopped, let him bring it forward, and if effective, ho will be a benefactor whose name should be remembered with blessing. But Mr. Williams will admit, at least it is all but universally believed, that these practices cannot be put down until regenerated humanity yields to a power that can alone dominate lawless passions and bring them into submission to the law of purity and holiness. This being so, is it right to merely close the eyes to what everyone knows to exist, and leave evils to run riot that are confessedly disastrous to the moral and physical well-being of the entire community? Or is it not more consonant with reason as well as religion to bring them under restraint that may at least confine them within defined limits, and if it do not suppress the evil, may at least prevent it from overflowing, and spreading its baleful influence over the pure and the unoffending ? Mr. Williams is a consistent and a strong opponent of alcoholic drinking, and we honour him for it. He believes this to be a curse second only, if second, 1.0 the blighting curse ot immorality, He believes that if alcoholic drink could be banished from the country it would bo the most blessed country under the blue dome of heaven. Mr. Williams, honest to his convictions, labours in season and out of season for this consummation. But in the meantime does he not deem it wise that the traffic in intoxicating drinks should be restrained within defined limitations. I for that its abuses unbridled would j bring devastation to our social life 1 Are those who labour for improved licensing laws guilty of complicity with the State regulation of vice ? And is Mr. Williams to be charged with countenancing immorality when he conscientiously tries to limit the evils of the traffic in strong drink? Mr. Williain3 could close his eyes to Sunday traffic; when people come rolling drunk out of the publichouse, he could look the other way. To the cries of the unhappy wife and the terrified children beaten by the hands of the drunken husband, he could stop his ears, and refuse to take any steps to stay the abuses of the liquor trade, because the whole thing is an unholy tiling, and it would compromise him to recognise in any way the State recognition of vice. This is not the sort ot Mr. Williams' citizenship, nor of his Christian philanthropy either. But while he fully believes, from his point of view, that strong drink is a curse, and ought to bo abolished, and labours and prays for that consummation, he recogi irises the evils that exist, and labours

for the restraint-or the regulation if you will— the evil which lie cannot suppress. We ask Mr. Williams is the case not analogous' of that other evil which is sapping the vitals of the community? Neither his conscience > nor his honor is compromised in recognising and restraining the evils of the liquor traffic, then why should it he in an effort to restrain the social evil Mr. Williams says "We contend that these acts are in their essence immoral, inasmuch as they assume that God Almighty made a mistake when He said,' Thou shalt not commit adultery."' Surely Mr. Williams has here allowed his words to run away with his sense. Where is this assumption in the principle of this act? Does it teach thou shalt commit adultery? Are its advocates advocating the committal of sin ? Does the restraint of this vice imply its encouragement, any more than the restraint of the liauor traffic implies the promotion of drinking? If Mr. Williams means that the removal of this disease means the removal of any restraint to immorality, he simply reveals an innocence—not reprehensible in a clergyman—regarding the wicked ways of the world. There is no doubt this idea is entertained by thousands of pure-minded women. Women not unreasonably look on the unfortunates of their class as luring men away, mid as such being an obstacle in the way of men forming wholesome married homes. The feeling isquite natural and wellf'ounded. But it prompts women generally to feel satisfied that there is such a penalty as this attached, both for the punishment of evil women and a punishment and deterrent to men themselves who so transgress. This is the idea that is at the bottom of the strongest feelings that have been excited among respectable women against these Acts, and clergymen who from association, have their sentiments largely shaped by women, not infrequently imbibe the same ideas._ So far as this malady may bo a punishment to fallen women, we need not here consider, but as to its being in the faintest degree a deterrent to men, it is utterly disproved by what we might see every day ; and the worst of it is, that pure women and innocent children, and citizens still unborn become the sufferers, without the slightest advantage accruing to the causo of morality. With similar _ vagueness of language, Mr. Williams says that " Christ's law of morality is the only one on which a social state can be safely built." And is " Christ's law of morality" that this seething mass of moral corruption should be left alone while we close our eyes and stretch not forth a hand to either arrest the evil, or to drag a victim from social perdition ? That is unfortunately a stratum in the base, on which our social state has been built, but it seems to us it is neither in accordance with "Christ's law of morality," nor is it conducive to the safety of the fabric. Mr. Williams says he risks the editorial thunder in reiterating the charge that the object of the C.D. Act is " to make it safe for men to sin." But there is no need of thunder. As applied to the motives of those who conscientiously hold views different from himself, it is a foul charge, of which as a minister he ought to be ashamed. Nobody doubts that the original motive in passing the Act for the Indian cantonments and garrison towns was to preserve the health of the official fighting men, soldiers and sailors, whom the exigencies of the national safety and the tiat of society have compelled to remain celibates. We have throughout repudiated argument on those conditions either in India, England, or anywhere else, except on those of New Zealand—and of Auckland, to be more specific. We do not contemplate the legislative or social reform of the whole world. But we know the conditions and the circumstances of our own position, and the requirements that these involve, and we know that the operation of the C.D. Act was beneficial in Auckland— morally, physically, and socially—and that it is with the object of producing these results only that the advocates of reform wish to see some kind of practical steps taken to deal with the immorality, and especially the juvenile immorality, of the city; and that it is only the morbid suggestion of foul-minded women that the object is "to make sinning safe." The persistent screeching of these has frightened _ many ministers and others, who, we believe, in spite of their honest convictions that legal force should be applied to the rampant evil of our streets, have not the moral courage to pronounce themselves oil the side of reason and morality. To several other points in our correspondent's letter we would like to make reply, but feel precluded by the length to which we have extended our remarks. But Mr. Williams's reference to the subject of the raising the age of consent we must briefly notice, lie says we "ought to know that there is already a legal remedy to check prostitution among girls under the age of 13." We do not know it. It is to obtain this we are striving. The police cannot interfere except flagrante delicto. This would be where the police cannot reach or see them ; and it would be the same if the age were raised to fifty. But if the police had power to interpose when tiioy see these children as surely walking the paths of death as if they saw them in circumstances embraced in the penal clauses of the existing infant protection law, then pro tanto there would be a check. But in the free trade system of sin existing, and _as defended by our opponents, there is no check either to young or old either from going to ruin themselves or from spreading moral and physical ruin around them. As for raising the age of consent to 18 we have called it mock morality, and so it is. Why not make it 50 at once ;it is just as defensible and just as needed. As Mr. Williams knows well the fixing of an age of consent was for the protection of children, who innocent and not knowing either the nature or consequences of the act, and being presumably passive, require to be protected as much from their own ignorance as from the designs of cunning men. A girl of eighteen that does not kr.ow enough to look after herself should be put in a plass case and be labelled " With care" for the remainder of her journey in this earthly pilgrimage ; and quite as much sympathy is due to the modest maiden of fifty whose defenceless innocence ought to be protected by law against the wiles of the gay deceiver. This sort of talk is stuff, and only made to go down with women, and that not robust-minded women, but the hysterica), morbid kind who are hardly fit for breathing the atmosphere of this wicked world.