LECTURES ON RELIGION.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2934, 18 February 1896, Page 3

LECTURES ON RELIGION.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir,— ln reply to the note appended to my last lecture, let me say in reply that I never considered myself strictly bound by conditions in the framing of which I was not consulted and to only one of which —No. s—l ever assented. The reasons given for the extensive excisions are, I think, a little extraordinary. (1) If I quoted at all from the Tablet it was because I had not a copy of your paper containing that particular’ lecture on I‘urgatory at hand ; because I knew it contained, if anything did, a correct expression of our friend’s opinions ; aud because I know it had beon laid on the table of the news-room. I find now the differences are not material. The substance of all I imputed to our friend is in your paper, including Luther’s change of opinions. In one or two instances I referred to opinions which were more exactly the opinions of our friend than those mutilated by your excisions after the manner of this lecture of mine, fie for one can’t complain. It is evident that it is solely the interest of your paper that is considered in this matter. (2) I have nothing to do with our friend, who has had his three months say, not having a right to reply. What I do know is that you, considering all this I have no doubt fully, in an issue of your paper, December 12th, offered me space not only to show the faith that is in mo but “ to refute the arguments” of our friend. This is my answer to the statement made in this note that 1 had « plenty of scope for showing the reasons of the faith that is in mo without such continual references to,” etc. How can I, pray, refute arguments without saying whose arguments they are ? That I have done in the moat friendly way I could think of, not mentioning the name at all, but using the term “ our friend.” The above reasons do not account for the excisions as a whole, and so after being told that excisions were made (1) because I quoted from the Tablet, (2) because my remarks wore a prolongation of the discussion to which there was no reply, the ground is completely changed when we are told “wo would have printed them had they added anything to the elucidation of the subject.” Thanks very much. I did not know, however, that inquisitors were set up to determine that, I don t think it is in the conditions, extraordinary as they are. I innocently thought the public was to judge of that. Can I be blamed for refusing to accept then a mutilated report as a fair, full, and correct expression of my opinions. Hoping excisions will not be made iu this loiter.—Yours, o t Cit John Dickson. The editor has referred the above letter to us for our remarks. We shall try to be as brief as possible. It raises the questions of (I) the conditions under which Mr Dickson’s lectures were to be published, (2) Mr Dickson’s preference for the Tablet’s report of Father Le Menant do Chesnais lecture on purgatory to that of the Leader, (3) the excisions from his lectures generally and from his lecture on purgatory in particular.

(1) Re the conditions, etc.--It is rather late in the day for Mr Dickson to say that he never agreed to the conditions of the 31st December, considering that four of his six lectures have already appeared. Further, most folks would say that when Mr Dickson wrote to the editor on the January 17th re conditions and objected only to the condition which limited him to two columns a lecture he agreed to the other conditions. At, least so we take it, and so far as we were concerned we were absolutely bound by the conditions, whether Mr Dickson was or not. If Mr Dickson objected to the conditions, why did he not say so in his letter of Jan, 17th, in which he intimated his intention to lecture ? This letter can be published if Mr Dickson likes, and then the public can see whether he objected to the conditions or not. Now, on the subject of space, we find Mr Dickson has been treated most generously. He received 2 a columns for each of his first and second lectures, 3 columns 6 inches for the third lecture, and 1 column 1-1 inches for the fourth lecture. The average space is, therefore, considerably more than 2 columns a lecture. Next we find the fourth condition stated the subjects on which Mr Dickson was to lecture, and we also find that on 17th December the editor closed his columns to correspondence on Father Le Menant’s lectures. Mr Dickson, however, refers to some remarks of the editor inviting discussion, but these, be it observed, were mado on December 12th, and surely the editor was the best judge ns to the time when the correspondence should close. The editor’s invitation for discussion was made on the 12th December, was withdrawn on the 17th December, and obviously does not now continue. It would certainly have been a most childish action on the part of the editor to refuse controversial matter because in the form of a letter and yet publish the same matter in the form of a lecture. (2) Re Mr Dickson’s preference for Tablet’s report, etc. From Father Le Menant’s lecture on purgatory the editor of this paper excised several portions, no doubt because he considered these objectionable in some way or other. Now Mr Dickson finds that the Tablet’s report suits his purpose better than the Leader's. It is unnecessary to state at length how he made this discovery, but the fact remains as we have stated. Further, we know that Mr Dickson the privilege of the use of a room witn a complete file of the Leader in the office of this paper. We do nst know that that privilege has yet been withdrawn j in fact, we know it has not, and will not be withdrawn. (3) Re the excisions from his lectures, e tc.—We wish to treat Mr Dickson fairly, and so will not enlarge on this point. It may be necessary—we hope not —at some future time to do so, but meantime we think we have said enough. We feel that we have had a difficult duty to perform, and have tried to act fairly between all parties. Doubtless we have not satisfied all parties. Who could have done so under the circumstances and conditions which bound us ! Wo asked neither the editor nor Mr Dickson for an interpretation of these conditions, and if our interpretation has been wrong we still claim credit for honest intentions. We have also to add that the editor has had no part either ja the writing of this note or in the making of any excisions from Mr Dickson’s ectures. J. i>. D. F.