PASSING. NOTES.

Otago Witness, Issue 1688, 29 March 1884, Page 18

PASSING. NOTES.

I was much amused with the very pretty piece of feminine temper which appeared in the Timea on Wednesday last over the signature "Homesick." ' The, sex of the writer which reveals itself in everysentence, gives a' certain piquancy r to , the letter which is quite delightful, I never read abuse>which sounded, co like praise; 'and I'should be both ungrateful; and ungallant if J did not acknowledge the. compliment paid me by my.fair, critic. True, she calls me " bibulous,* and my wit' "cc- ( phantino," but she does--' not' itioan it. She knows pnly^ too well that none, but a moderate' drinker-^a man^.sq, to say, who can keep v hiß balance, • swaying neither towards ■ sottish ' drunkenness not sour teetotalisra— could write [ ■uoh , inimitable. Notes. , And. when she takes to calling me names and abusing me, I am not co ignorant of the female heart as,' not to know what that, means, r Is it not the dictum of Mrß Malapro'p that 'lo^e should begin'in "a little aversion ?'"" But fortunately Mrs Of vis is still to the fore, and, eyen theugh I might wish to effect 'a- chaiige in faVour of my " Homesick >' 1 admirer, the law would not allow, me.' ! ' The truth' is that we New Zea landers are "not Americanised up t6' that stage yet. I a/m truly sorry ,'l)ufc there is no doubt a good time' i comiiig,'wrierf i we'ihall marry and nnmarry l an f d'i:eVm'afry at our pwti v sweet will, like our dea^cousina in' '' ( ''' '"" ' • The land of tbe free ! r -, \And the home oMhe brave. . Till then,i I fear my' adorer ' will have to be lovesick as well as homesick/ unless she should elect— Pthinl^thal is'ihe Word— to transfer ber affection's. W'injr friend Mr " iJacob Terry, 1 ' who, as be i is, now a dwellor on American soil, would tperhaps be f glad to hear from' her. I understand, besides, that it is always leap year in America. ",'.'■'' From cornsacks , to t Un i vereity examinations ia an easy transition. Both subjects belong to the category of " things no fellow can understand." "' ''Mr Alex 1 . Wilson, of the Dunedin High. SchO 1 01,/has,' ! a letter in the Lyttelton Times-^sinco! copied into. the Dunedin Star — on some, perplexing, facts connected with the Junior 1 Scholarship examination. He says : " The authorities ( of the University will notbe doing their duty unless submit the English papers to tie examined by another examiner .neither directly nor indirectly interested ,in the . candidates examined." An ominouß sentence this, remembering the writer's position ' and. his. opportunities of special information., Apparently we may congratulate ourselves on the prospect of an interesting academical ' ( row. The examiner in English, says Mr Wilson, was Professor Brown, of Canterbury College, and he requests, that gentleman to state whether he (the examiner) lectured in Christchurch on the subjects of the examination to candidates, or to the teachers of candidates, and whether, also, the papers of theSs iChristchurch candidates were not distinguished from those of their competitors by the initials of the superintendent of the .examination — contrary to the regulations. Whether' these things were thus remains to be proveaJ ', No one can doubt that they ought not to have been thus. It is possible of course to believe in Professor Brown's entire honesty as an examiner, and yet to feel that the, conditions under which he examines wear an exceedingly, uncomfortable look. Mr Wilson shows, by_the example of Miss Forbes, that Dunedin candidates* are, for some reason or other, at a disadvantage in Prnfe«fior Brown's English examination. Miss Forb'esi Bays Mr WilsOn). "was "probably the most •distinguished pupil' ever sent forth by the Dunedin Girls-H igh * School," an estimate of the young lady's attainments which is corroborated by the fabt'th^at she came"out first in the Junior Scholarship competition. When examined in English by Professor Sale, Miss Forbes obtained Si'per cent, of marks.* When examined immediately afterward in the same subject by Professor Brown eho obtained only 54 per cent,, the Christchuich candidates obtaining from 70. to .SO par cent. In the other subjeatSjiMisH Forbes pulled up thiß leeway, and thus on' the whol^ examination came out first. There is evidently something unhealthy for Dunedin' candidates, in the English paper. The mention' of Professor' Brown's name in connection t.with scholarship examinations Bet me turning^bver the; Daily Times file for 1882 in search., of an .artiole, commenting on j that gentleman's, , oddities as . a.n examiner, which .appeared, when tbe Senate was last in session here. » I find that the Times was then J accusing PrcJfeiso'r ' Brow'h* of ' harassing the scholarship candidates by, examination papers "of preposterous' length and difficultly."- The article trays:— •■> < r -j " ■ • I One of the examination ■ papers is before us. i The answers to .it, if given , with moderate fulness, -would occupy something like a page of the Daily Times. The candidate is mercifully informed, however, that he is not, to attempt all the questions. Some are compulsory, but others are given , in pairs, arid he is to select one from each, pair. Reducing the paper to its lowest terms, w,e fipd that, the questions which tho examiner thinks should beattsmpted number 89— no less. ' /',"', Nice little questions some of thorn were, too, e.g.— " Comp;are-Milton's dramatic power and use of thedrama with Shakespeare's "—an invitation, as the Times'^ remarks, to an "essay of considerable leng^".' The most surprising feature, however, remains to be mentioned :— The time allo"wed L for the 89 questions is two hours— something less than one minute and ahalf for each I T We"have M th'e 'utmost respect for Professor' Brown's capacity, quickness, and knowledge of the subjpet; but,' to be quite candid with him, we io'not'bdlieve he could do the paper himself in the'time'he has allowed, and we doubt whether any other member of ' the Senate could do one-half of it. This was two years ago. In the interval Professor Brown has mended his ways. Looking over his last paper in English I find that the questions are reduced in number from 89 to 88. Ia deference to newspaper qritioiam the Pro.-

' fesaor has knocked off one question. That is something, and no doubt the candidates are grateful. But ho has introduced a novelty which strikes me as very peculiar indeed. The paper is divided into two parts "of equal value " — that is, each would count for 50 per coufc of marks. The first part consists of 87 questions, tho second directs the candidate tq write ian essay on some ono of the subjects read— Milton's ''Comus'" or a play of Shakespeare. Thus the essay counts for aa much as all the other anpv.-r rs. Query : Is; the essay easitr for those candidates who have listened to the prelections ' of the examiner than for those who haven't ? It may not be v\eani to be so, but is it so, as a matter of fact ?

1 Mr Milner Stephen, tho " magnetic healer," returns to us once more, heralded this time by $he report' of a lively comedy transacted at his meeting in Invorcargill last week. Dr Wardale, hospital surgeon, produced a crippled patient" from the institution under his' care, and ! offered the, magnetic Stephen ten guineas to heal him. . Mr Stephen: objected that it was not right to tempt' him >by the offer of filthy lucre. He had already referred to a scale of " fixed charges," and hinted JJbat the mention' of ten /guineas had spoiled the patient's chances. Dr jWardale was willing to waive the question' of i honorarium. He wanted the man healed anyhow : was Mr Stepnen going to do it or not,?' Mr' Stephen 'couldn't say just then, but,he would take the opportunity of leading a few testimonials. Testimonials read. Would the meeting refuse to believo these sworn statements'? Dr Wardale intimated that seeing was, believing, and that the meeting was waiting to see the present cripple healed. To Mr Stephen : " Will you cure thia stiff knee?" Mr Stephen would say when he had looked at it, but in the meantime would read another testimonial. What did the doctor think of that ? The doctor, in reply, intimated that he didn't think anything of that; and repeated hiß demand "that the healer would " do something local," whereupon Mr Stephen rebuked him for his unbelief, and produced a phial i containing some "roots of cancer "extracted by magnetic agency. Had the doctor ever seen such roots before ? . The doctor said that he certainly never had, and what was more, was prepared to deny that a cancer had any roots at all. "No medical man on earth that knows his profession' would say that a cancer has roots." Was Mr Stephen going to heal this case ? Hereupon Mr Stephen waxed indignant : "Am Ito stand upon my defence before a board of doctors ? God forbid ! I should have a very short thrift." He was proceeding to " narrate some further experiences," and probably to read more testimonials, when the audience dispersed, and the doctor carried his cripple back to the hospital. Mr Milner S.tephen is nqw in Dunedin, where he purposes to "make early arrangements for the public healing of the poor," and in the meantime dispenses magnetised water and red flannel at' the ''usual rate of charges.

Mr Chas. B. Hutchison's denseness is greater even than I_ had imagined — greater than I could havo thought possible in one who " has been writing for the public prints in the Colonies for ten years. ' But lam not going to break a butterfly upon tho wheel. I would, however, seriously ad vise Mr Hutchison to take the trouble of reading carefully what he means to or disprove, arid to be quite sure that he understands what ho reads. He ieems, in his present exalted; state of mind, merely to glance at this or that, and then to go off in a fit of hysterics over something which he imagines he has read. For example : I did not pay that " each Otago Presbyterian spent £5 yearly on 'drink." lam not the man to bring a railing accusation against 'my bretliern, and far less against my sistern. Each Presbyterian would include the ladies. Now I have good authority for believing that the privilege of maintaining the national honour by drinking the due amount of whisky is vested in tho stronger sex. Even the Knox Church elder who told Mr Blair that he felt awfully inclined to go en the spree would ha\ c beeu shocked if ho had heard his spouse utter such a sentiment. A true blue Scotch Presbyterian would as soon see his wife wear the breeks as turn up her little finger. No, no. , All I said was that Mr Hutchison had failed to disprove the statement (of the Otago, Synod, as I take it) that Otago Presbyterians spend £5. a-year per head on drink — t. «., that they spend on an average £5 a-year. And Mr Hutchison's denseneas consists in his inability to see the distinction between the two statements. I hope he will give his "Qrst spare quarter of an hour to the subject ; for I can assure him that when the Synod said that Otago Presbyterians spent £5 a-year per head on drink they did not mean each and every Presbyterian, male or female, gentle or simple, teetotaller or tippler. But Mr Hutchison must -not think that I " jeer and sneer " at his glowing philanthropy, or that I do not read my Bible. Nor have I the least objection to his crying as loud as he pleases, only I wish for his own sake, as well as for the sake of the good cause which he seems to have so deeply at heart, that he would mix a little more sense with his noise.

I have given several weeks' laborious and unin terrupted study to the great corn-sack question, and am now prepared to announce the result • To understand the corn-sack question two qualifications are necessary,— first, you must be pecuniarily interested in corn sacks; second, you must approach the subject with a mind already made up. Having ascertained as muoh as this, I retired from the inquiry. What was the good of going on with it when I didn't pusses.s the elementary qualifications for success I can see as far into a corn sack— or even into a coal sack— as most men, but I confess that after reading the report of Saturday's meeting my generally clear intelligence had to acknowledge itself utterly baffled. Tbe controversy i 8i 8 of tbe roost thrilling and exciting nature, no

doubt, but what is it all about? The produce agents protest their willingness to pay for the bags in which the farmer sells his oats, but not to pay for them separately. They want tobuy grain as they would buy tea orßugar— wrappers charged for in the piice of the article. The farmer, oir the other hand, replies that if the grain bags are not paid for separately they are not paid for at all. There must be somothing in it, or wo should not havo the Egricultural mind, from the Waimato to Invercargill, in its presenj inflammatory condition, but what this something is baffles me utterly. When I buy an article at tho draper'B, does the draper give twine and wrapping papor in? Not in the least ! The price ia apparently the price of the article itßelf, but in reality it is the price of a good deal besides. I pay not only for twine and wrapping, but for rent and gas and shop fittings, for plate glass windows, for the ad vertisement which attracted me by the promise of a " ruinous sacrifice," for the civilities even of the shopman who nerves me. It seems, however, that there io something about corn sacks that makes thorn different from all other commercial wrappaj/oa ; if not paid for Bepar. ately they can't be >>v.id for at all. It is a gr< at mystery. Not being pecuniarily interested in I corn sacks, and not having made my mind up on the question to begin wis.h, I have abandoned the. hope of ever getting to the \ bottom of it.

" Homesick " does not quite understand the people amongst whom sho at preseut lives. " I have seen families," she says, "on their way to church whose invariable custom it is for the man to go two or three steps in advance of the woman, and speak to her a word now and then over his shoulder, while she humbly and contentedly hurries after him, seemingly quite well pleased to have such notice taken of her." Why, bless me, that is tho " invariable " Scotch "custom," and dates from what is called the second Reformation. But it is no proof of want of gallantry on the part of Caledonians,' being, strictly speaking, a religious custom. A thoroughbred Fresbytorian would no more dream of showing any fondness for his wife on the Sabbath day than he would dream of denying the' Confession of Faith. All such worldly dalliance is rigorously confined to the six working days ; on the seventh the Scotchman rests from folly as well as from labour, the only little induJgence allowed on that day being the orthodox tumbler of toddy. I am surprised that "Homesick" should not have known this, as there must be lota of Scotch couples in all parts of America who still observe this ancient aud devout custom. There is something, besides, patriarchal in the hu&band's leading the way to the House of God — the grave, douce gudeman tramping < n before, while the sweet, pious- faced gudewife foots it humbly and cheerfully after with her troop of lads and lasses. There is not a prettier sight under the sun. But it would be unjust to infer that, 1 a Scotchman does not love and reverence his wife because he walks before her to church. I have heard of a woithy Scotch minister who had his spouse up before the kirk session for kissing him while she tied his neckcloth one Sabbath morning. One fancies that ho" might havo pardoned such a little sin. But no. Sabbath- breaking was not to be tolerated in the ininißter'e wife any more than in the humblest parishioner, and she had consequently to submit to the discipline of the Kirk. Do not, however, imagine that even the Rev Mr Blattergowl loved his bonnie Jean a whit the less on that account. As soon as she had done penanco I have no doubt the kisses fell from the minister's own lips thick as leaves in Vallambrosa, though I am pretty Bure she never again forgot her duty so far as to kiss him, big with his lecture and sermon, on a Sabbath morning. "Homesick" will thus see that she is quite at fault in her remark touching the custom sho mentions.

future question, and, Mr J. T. P. would learn in one moment that hi 3 " earliest choice " was vigorous, bfcrai^htforward, and of some scriptural attainments. We have been treated this week to two letters ia tho Daily Timea on the Westminster Confession. The writer of one of them, who signs himself " P^eaby ter " and professes to bo concerned for the defence of the Confession, aftßr giving a ghastly account of the doctrines which he supposes that venerable document to contain, dates his communication, "In the flesh, March 22." ' The date helps one to understand some things otherwise dark in the letter. I- have a vague remembrance of ' a text which says something to the' effect that "they that are in the flesh cannot please GoS'" — a passage which no doubt applies in this case. Whether ' "Presbyter" pleases , God or. not, it- is certain that he won't please his co-religionists, who, for the most part, have a proper aversion to , seeing the standards of their faith expounded in anonymous letters to the newspapers. , The other writer is a lady,, and modestly announces herself as sueh — "A Presbyterian Lady." Considered asasignature, "Presbyterian' Lady " is good. It savours of Victoria, whence, as the " Lady " informs us, she has come, aud where the term "lady" ha 3 probably been somewhat Americanised. In the States, the " lady " who does your shirts sends up by the othor " lady," who condescends to act' as your hired " help, ' to say that she has called to be paid for the washing. The purpose •of the " Presbyterian Lady's " letter to the Times is to express her " surprise and pain " at the condition in which, on her arrival from Melbourne, sho finds the Piesbyterian Church here. This ia modest, certainly. " Surprise and pain," fersooth ! She might be a bishop, this " Presbyterian Lady," or the Moderator of the General Assembly. Pity we didn't know she was coming. We might have brushed things up a bit — sent a deputation of Presbytery to meet her, and preached a sermon in her honour in Knox Church. It is not fair to take us unawares, aud then publish through the newspapers her "surprise and pain" at the condition in which she finds us. It is on the Rev. Mr Waddell, in particular, that her magisterial robuke falls heaviest. Mr Waddell has committed the unfaithfulness of writing a prefaco to Mr Bracken's volume of poems. "A glance through the pages of the book " has revealed to our modest censor "a strain of scepticism running through the verses which could not be endorsed by anyone subscribing to the Westminster Confession.'' Bad, this, for the Rev. Mr Waddell ! Here was a clergyman living amongst us in all good repute — integer vitae scclerisque purus, as we supposed — who is suddenly bowled out by the providential advent of this "Presbyterian Lady " from Melbourne. After being thus publicly convinced of sin, it iB to be hoped that Mr Waddell will repent at the earliest date convenient to himself, and signalise the occasion by burning his Bracken, together with his Tennyson, his Bums, and the other idols of his worship, in front of St. Andrew's Church. It is much to be desired that the "Presbyterian Lady," on the completion of her mdral inspectorate, should be able to tako back to Melbourne the intelligence that this conspicuous backslider has been reclaimed. Civis.