ORIGINAL CORRESPONDENCE.

Otago Witness, Issue 239, 28 June 1856, Page 3

ORIGINAL CORRESPONDENCE.

To the Editor of the Otago Witness.

My Dear Sir, — In these days of excitement and revolution, it is quite enough that one bear that with which he is justly chargeable, without having at the same time to endure the burden of what is entirely the property of another. This remark applies much more to public men than it does to those who enjoy the peace and retirement of private life. The character of a man in private life is dear to him, but the character of one who occupies a public sphere must be, at least to himself, much more precious. This feeling has induced me to do myself a bit of justice which you mis;ht have done for me, but which, though solicited with all the ardour which injured innocence could command, you have refused to do. At all events you have had ample opportunity afforded you for undoing a wrong which you very wantonly did me, and you have not thought fit to do it. This refusal on your part, when appealed to, as a man of honour and honesty, to rectify your own deviations from truthful description, must form my excuse for occupying so much of your limited space on this occasion. In number 234 of the Otago Witness, near the close of the Editor's leader, there occurs a very inelegant sentence, or to speak more correctly, a rude conglomeration of sentences— such an unseemly crowding of half ideas that the reader cannot help smiling at the self-complacency of its writer, who is found very shortly after recommending to one of his learned contributors the study of Dr. Lindley Murray's principles of English Grammar. But, sir, this is not the worst fault of the sentence to which I refer. A part of it accuses a minister of the Gospel of being an admirer of certain sectarian views which from his very heart lie abhors. Yea, so stronsrly do you make him speak in favour of these sectarian views, that you make him say that the speech containing them was worthy of being printed in letters of gold. It is true, sir, that you leave the public to guess what these views were. But as you impute the expression of them to thenauthor as something inconsistent with his office, and consequently contrary to the Gospel, it needs but little mental effort, if any at all, to come to the serious conclusion that both the author of these condemned views and the admirer of them must be actuated by a very unchristian spiiit. This, sir, is a very serious charge to bring against any Christian minister ; and, let me tell you, it is a very easy thing to deduce a long string of serious conclusions from the given position that a minister of the bospel is such an admirer of sectarian views that he recommended a speech embodying them to be printed In letters of gold. , I leave the one minister to defend himself, and before concluding shall offer a few words in vindication of the other, who happens to be myself. I have already explained to you that the reason why I spoke as I did in favour of Mr. Bannerman's speech was simply this, viz.— that I considered it as a statement of fundamental principles of Christian truth on which the leading Christian denominations in the Province might unite in enrrying out religious education. In my simplicity, Mr. Editor, I thought tins was the very opposite of sectarianism. But since you say " No," it will perhaps avail little that I say " Yes." And yet it must be granted that I am the best judge of my own meaning. But, sir, how did you manage to come to the sage conclusion that I recommended Mr. Bannerman's speech to be printed in letters of gold, became I admired its sectarian views ? Granting that it was sectarian— which, however, I deny— might there not possibly have been other reasons for my admiring that speech ?— its grammatical excellencies, for example, or perhaps its being favourable to the views of the Executive, &c, &c. Suppose I were to giiess a motive for your charge of sectarianism published against me, I think it would be easy to find at least a score, and perhaps there might not one of them be correct. It is always best to let motives alone. If the Editor of the Otago Witness had done this, he would have es-

caped the unpleasant situation of wantoiily injuring an unoffending minister's character. Yours, &c, Wm. Will. Taieri Manse, 24th June, 1856. [Mr. Will, in his letter, makes a great deal more of the few words in our article to which he refers than the occasion warranted. We never intended to give him the character he assumes our remarks gave him. Mr. Bannerman, in his speech, proposed to make the Shorter Catechism a standard and class-book in the public schools. We consider that sectarian teaching. Mr. Will understands sectarianism to convey a much stronger meaning ; we did not use the term in the latter sense. It is, however, not fair for Mr. Will to satirise his clerical brother by pretending that his admiration of the speech arose from its " grammatical excellencies."