Correspondence.

New Zealand Tablet, Volume V, Issue 238, 23 November 1877, Page 9

Correspondence.

Wo axe not responsible for the opinions expressed by our correspondents.

A QUIETUS FOR "CLERICUS."

To the Editor of the New Zealand Tablet. Sib.— From the vciy first day that I landed at Auckland, until the day I left it I could never get rid of the idea that it was the bleepy Hollow of the colonies, and I could only see a faithful photo of Hip Van Winkle in the countenance of every man I met in Queen street. In the last number of the Tablet to hand I see, with unspeakable pleasure that " Clericus " has, after a repose of about three months awakened to consciousness, and to battle. During all that time he had not seen a Tablet ! Three months in Kew Zealand without scein«a, 1 ablet ! ! Mind, he does not say so, but this is the natural interence to be drawn from what he does say. His first letter was, if I recollect rightly, written in July, and his next one in October. Is it necessary for me to write any more in support of my original proposition ? I might stop here and leave this issue between us to the judgment of our readers, were it not that he has imported other questions into the discussion upon which I have something to say. If the style and quality of Ms expletives be taken as a reflex of Ins temper, he must have been bordering on a state of incandescence when ho sat down to pen his last epistle, and I assure you, Sir, that 1 would xiot again trespass on your space to anger him any further, but that in the cause of justice and truth, I feel compelled to correct one or two errors into which he has, no doubt, inadvertently fallen. At the time my letter, in answer to " Clericus/' appeared 'in your columns, I noticed that the word '• may " was misprinted " way " a printer's error not worth correcting. It appears, however, that your coriespojulent attaches some importance to this trifling typographical mistake. He accuses me of being " verbose with a vengeance " Now I may inform him it does not necessarily follow that a man must be verbose because he writes a long letter. It is within the rano- c of possibility, nay, it sometimes happens that one correspondent °to a paper is more verbose in one column than another may be in two Whenever I write to the Tablet I try to make myself understood, and to put my ideas in clear, plain, intelligible language which unfortunately '• Clericus " seems incapable of understanding. He also makes a very grave mistake in his estimate of tlie sort of" thin"- that would please me, and that I would wish to sec your columns embellished with. I believe that lam justified in saying that I have written more for the Tablet than he has, and I think that I have never mode use of "Broad acres of big language," nor have I ever jumbled up " Urien Boroimbhc, Mr. Darwin and the moon" together for the benefit of your readers. "Clericus" has certainly mistaken his man tins time in more ways than one. He is extremely sarcastic and ironical. 1 here is no necessity for all this. I hope sincerely that Catholics will always love, honour, and venerate their priests, and when they do not I can pity them, but I also hope that we may always feel such confidence in them as to be able to differ with them when the occasion requires it, on such purely secular matters as that now under discussion between " Clericus " and me. If men will but come with the proper disposition and the requisite amount of subjective feeling to an argument, it will be conducted in a manner that will leave no bitter feelings behind it, but it mostly happens that people of a certain calibre lose sight of what is due to their opponent in objective party feeling, and without the slightest justification imprudently take refuge in lecrimination. lam unwillingly led to make these remarks from one of the closing sentences of " Clericus' " letter, and indeed it is this veiy uncharitable remark of his that has induced me to again take up my pen to answer him. "If credence be given to rumour," he writes, " the Thames happily got rid of the same m termeddler "—meaning <• Eathkealensis "— "'some years a°-o ClmstcJrareh is now the scene of his ofliciousne&e." and thenhe applies to me a most ungracious and uncomplimentary Latin proverb I am sure that when » Clericus" cools down and calmly reflects upon the consequences that may possibly follow from an exposure of this sort, win a he quietly reviews the unhappiness of mind that this will perhaps cause to the poor unlucky wight that came down here to this rrj ug iv vi peer atom m . he will regret it. As " Clericus " has compared me to a pugilist, I may remark, in the language of the rinsr, that this .stroke is " below the belt." Unhappily for the truth of this rumour lam able as the gentlemen of the Bar say— to prove an alibi I must have been elsewhere, for I have never lived at the Thames in my life, nor wave I ever been to the place save a few times for the purpose ol visiting some claims on the goldficlds in which I was interested. So much, for the " credence that is to be given to rumour." Having explained this mistake, and it is not a slight one, I will ju^t make one or two more observations on the letter before me " I repeat," 1 lie writes, " that in reality mmr priests do contribute in one way or other to your columns." Sir, up to the moment I read this sentence I "had believed that till priests, or at least almost all the priests in the colony, were in the habit of contributing in some way or other to your paper. It now appears that I was wrong, and that only some of them do so. " Some priests do contribute in one way or other '"' Not all only some of the very men, who, above all others, should feel most interested in the progress and the welfare of the Tablet. But let its eschew generalities, and come to facts. I never alluded in my letters to the support that priests might give to the Tablet •• in one way or other," nor did I ever doubt, until I was enlightened by " Clericus," that they supported it in some way or other. What I said was to the effect that with their abundant means and opportunities they did not contribute to its columns with their pen, Surely there was not much to find fault with in this, nor can I sec any ambiguity about it, and I solemnly declare to " Clericus V that when I penned these words I had not tb.e romotest intention of wounding tlie susceptibilities or of giving offence to any man in the colony. These words were written with a sincere desire to see the Tablet well and ably supported by

writers who, from the very nature of their high office, must be educated^ must be able to invest any matter they treat of with a peculiar interest, and must be able to bring to the treatment of any subject an amount of learning which people in the lower walks of life cannot be expected to possess. This is my apology for what I have written. I feel that I am growing verbose, there is a contagion in this vice, but I cannot conclude this letter before I tell Clericus that the gigantic proportions of America have not escaped my notice, and I take j this opportunity to remind Mm also of one or two other items of "gigantic properties" which she can fairly claim from the whole world— her gigantic swindles, her whiskey rings, her Tammany rings. No nation will, I think, care to doubt her supremacy in this particular hne. I have often heard of the " tall talk" of the Americans, but until now I have never heard of their " gigantic language," as Clericus puts it. I only know; that Mr. Webster wrote a Dictionary of the English language for which nobody in England thanked him. That there are great and clever -writers in America no man will deny, but take away a few of those great names and what is the residue ? A huge multitude of scribbling mountebanks of the Professor- | Julius-Cresar-Hannibal stamp, who are doing all in their power to corrupt the language of the country, and the tastes of the people. I must confess that I never could see anything to admire in the peculiarly undignified character of the literature of American authors of the DmlnmjNcm stamp that reach us at this side of the globe. But as this has nothing whatever to do with the original question, I beg to apologise for taking up so much of your space, and to plead guilty for once to the charge of verbosity. _, RATHAKEALENSrS. P.S.— Let me suggest to Clericus that he should have headed hii letter, not " Kathealcnsis Again," but " Clericus Again." He bepan with one mistake and finished with another. R. Chribtchurch, November 12, 1877.