CLUTHA PRESBYTERY. TO THE EDITOR.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 3863, 4 July 1874, Page 4

CLUTHA PRESBYTERY. TO THE EDITOR.

Sir—Your issue of the "Witness of the 27fck mst., and I presume also your Daily of that or &. previous date, contains a report of the proceedings of theClufcha Presbytery, in reference to tbe charge preferred before it-against the Rev. Mr Bahneriiian, and contains also ah editorial comment on the decision arrived at. Towards Its close your report has the following:—" A desultory discussion then took place, and the meeting became very disorderly, Mr Waters -almosfc usurped the functions of the Chairman." As worded, this statement cannot but mislead many, if not most,: who read it. The phrase " very disorderly,"' from its common use wheis. applied to public meetings, can scarcely fail to beget the belief, that bet weep, members of Pres- : bytery there was warmth of feeling engendered, and angry or hasty utterances exchanged. Yonrreporter, by the word "disorderly"'cbulS not? have meant to convey to the public that such, was the case, for no heat of feeling was then evoked, nor hasty or angry word uttered. What took place : was a desultory discussion, or rather a talk, between members of Court, to ascertain if possible what deliverance should or could be arrivedafc. There had been submitted, and seconded^ & motion simply declaring that the Presbytery finds no evidence to support the charge as alleged—(a motion not in your'report, nor in that of the Guardian; the* Bruce Herald reporter was absent, and had been focsome time)W; To tins unction there was made .the amendment moved by Mr Chisholni, but not seconded; "Whilst only the mover was inclined to accede to the terms o£ that amendment, there ■_ was yet a hesitancy va. agreeing to theiinaotiohaslit stood. Onthe1 part of some a was indicated for additions made to. its' to which 'indeed' nonewere strongly opposed.r At this -juncture■■ conversations- took: place between individual members, as to > whafe the; additions should cover, and what form oE words might get the concurrence of the largest majority, and accomplish besides one end soughfc -•the acquiescence in the deliverance of two parties immediately concerned. < Several suggestions were made, hut ai far as memory serves mej J no motion nor amendment was submitted or framett: other than those given "'to thepubKc. '; :':: -r The mover of the first' simple motion' above alluded7 to (the present writer) put to that original motion the additions attached,.,as finally carried, and had learned that Mr Bannerman was not unwilling-to accept the motion with the additions as attached, and had also reason to" believe, the majority would vote for it. Mr Allen, had meantime drawn up his amendment andi read it, though, hot formally. To its terms it was known Mr Bannerman would decidedly object. Though between it and the motion, the difference may be apparently little, .yet; looked into, it seemed to most of us to be considerable.. And for; this reason: In his formal, statement Mr GiUies claimed that in the speech he complained of the criticisms, throujgjloutiwere -personal to him as the supposed arShor of an article or as a supposed writer rar the Daily TinresTherefore, in the opinion of most, if hot of every, member of Presbytery present, to withdraw the criticism as a whole -would/he to withdraw what was'meant for the Times irrespective of individual writers. This is the desultory discussion your report refers to. Instead of the vestry, as usual, we were hi the church, to convenience the reporters and others who. hail come in, and because of the cold some had risen and were moving to and fro in the space beside and behind the pulpit, some standing near a lighfi reading pencil jottings. For this latter purpose,. Mr Waters was standing behind the Moderator reading and altering a pencil jotting, and betimes conversing with the Cl.rk of Presbytery and others, as to the import©' his amendment* bufe was not usurping the functions of the ChairmanIt was, indeed, one of tho: c occasions when, the Chairman feels ho is not called upon to interfere, untiJ a'formally proposed agreementL he subnuH^d. It is this, your reporter has described as very disorderly, and; perhaps; in. a .sense, correctly enough, though.l~ believe not usual. He could of course,; gat no connected narrative of what .was ■jwjrigvsaii But there was nothingJu-word, tcfyfor look, of that wMck is usually or oftan called disorderly, in a meeting convened for deliberation. There was: in the matter nothing unusual in a meeting deliberatingon a matter to be enacted, or on a matter to be adjudicated upon. Now, as to your comment on the decision itself, with your permission, I have some remarks to make. Whether there was heat in the Presbytery or no, it is surely in your editorial. The original question is not here meant to be meddled with. ' That, if need be, we leave to McBannerman, whose scholarship, logical force, pen. and platform readiness, qualify him to criticise with full "effect. lam amusingly amazed at the wrath of your editorial against the Presbytery's; deliverance, and at the many, it nvgdt be Bud^. undignified declamations huiled a^amst it a. id your strong belief that every upright and Christian man will in time coming continue £» hurl ab it like declamations. Have goc d mea. ceased to forgive ami hope for amendment? Was such storm ever stiired.in a ten-cup t But however others may feel, you have little reason to be wrathful; for that decision, whatever its weight or worth, is in the Press's behalf. So_ far as your statemeuts show, the pacfe of the decision to you most obnoxious; is where it says: "Mr Banuennan may have made a mistake in attiibutiug to Mr Gillies the article in. the l)aily Tunes." You say it should have run— Did make a mistake." With respectful deference, I most decidedly differ from you. Had Air Gillies been avowedly the author of the article* that part of the decision might have stood worded quite the same. It was not Meant to throw doubfc on Mr Gi)lu s's avowal tbafc he was nctthe author;, i but to convey to Mr Baimernmn fchat, in our

Jnclgment, he had erred, or, in his'own judgment, made a mistake in so publicly and poiutedly indicating a certain person as author of a certain - nonymous production ; that in the case in hand he had, in our opinion, overstepped the bouudary which limits the public criticism of an anonymous article. Mr Gillies's disavowal of the • 'authorship had been accepted, and Mr Bannerroan admitted his error, la passing the motion it "was the general priuciple that was most in my mind, and that part, I admit, might have been framed without Mr Gillies's name.; with more leisure and quiet, it likely would have so been. As your comment represents it, the motion is inconsistent with fact, and equally ' so with itself ; but as above explained, is perfectly consistent with fnct and with itself. If I 'be^alloyvecl I would venture to express the belief that the more it is considered the more will it commend itself to calm and unbiassed minds Tou say also tlmt some of the statements in Mr Bannerman's speech were sufficient to aggrieve Mr Gillies. Well, we have said, they may have been sufficient to aggrieve him, and on that ground formally requested Mr Rannerman to cause a public statement be made, with the view -of disconnecting Mr Gillies from the whole criticism of his speech. And it is only fair to add that in the heaving of all, Mr. Baunerman "expressed his willingness to comply with the re- ' quest made of him in the terms of that decision. ' A promise which, as I think, he has candidly .'implemented. Wherein, I ask, in its judgment on this case, has the Presbytery stultified itself in the esteem of all upright and Christian men ? There is no ground for the stattmjut, and it deserves to be repudiated as calumny. My belief ,is, no Church court, nor otherjudijatory of men, "would seek, or, on rational grounds, could go further than that decision goes. Your editorial employs the terms, "insult to decency," "insensate conduct," and talks of revolting common justice, common sense, common decency. &c. Permit me to say, that such language, in my opinion, is as little creditable or graceful to dito ialism as to platform speaking- ineithercase they are likelier to be the expressions of passion "than of reason. And if in the present case they are meant to cast odium on the Clutha Presbytery, in the opinion of many, they have a tendency to reflect it also on journalists -and journalism. These remarks are longer than was anticipated. I hope, however, you will allow them a place in youi- weekly and daily issues. As a member of the Presbytery, and as a subscriber to your paper, I ask it.—l am, &c, John Waters. The Manse, "Warepa, June 29th.