CLUTHA PRESBYTERY.

Clutha Leader, Volume I, Issue 12, 24 September 1874, Page 4

CLUTHA PRESBYTERY.

_._f_ue ioiwwing_answers to reasons lor protest. j-and .appeal, by; Robert Gillies against the decision , > of . the ; Presbytery of Clutha in ihe matter .of the ReyVMr. Bannerman* were brought ijq^.by the Rev. Mr Waters' at the meeting, on. Wednesday last. ; \ The space at buri.' disr! . posal did not admit of ; our. enibodyiiig. the, same in , our report, in last Issue ':,•—- --... Before these! [Reasons', seriatim, your committee deem J a short statement in reference to this! case may not be out of place, more especially); as; in public and private, there iseems to have been some . considerable misapprehension as to its nature, and the, form it stood in : to be dealt with in; its pre? liminary stage. It is the first, of its kind this Church has had" to >coDsicler, and it may be very long ere it have another. It was not a case of two parties before a. Court, of which neither was a member, nor that of a famabaving. an admitted existence, and claiming investigation to ascertain its sources, but an allegation sought to be laid on 1 the table of a Court accusing one of its members and which, if substantiated as to the existence of the matter alleged, would have necessitated the Cpurf to request! the accused to vacate his. seat as a member of Presbytery, and take his place at its bar. These remarks are deemed necessary, because of the reflections that have been made in various quarters, seemingly from a misunderstanding' of the nature of the. case For this also tbe answers are longer than the reasons would otherwise have deserved.

Reason Ist. Because the resolution come to was carried by a small majority, and does not deal fairly with the matter. of the complaint. „ ' Answer —As to the first part of this reason, it is enough to say that matters of a greater moment have often been j carried by as small a majority, and that in every, or almost, every Court, the, ju- j dicatory -of whiph con ists of three or j more members. But iv this case there was but one member decidedly iresolved* on having the amendment carried. Its mover expressed his willingness to have it withdrawn, which it would have been but for the seconder objecting to it, I The latter part of the reason is a mere assertion, unbacked by proof. ' It is a sufficient answer simply to assert the contrary, — that the resolution deals | fairly and pointedly with the matter complained of by Mr Gillies. | Reason 2nd — Because the resolution j says, "that there is no evidence in the report of his speech of slandering Mr Gillies, whereas there was, to i say the least of it, some evidence that the report of his speech was substantially correct ; that there were slanderous statements made about some one, and that person was Mr Gillies. I

Answer. — Mr Bannerrnan distinctly admitted the report of his speech to be sunstantially correct. But no fair and candid criticism of'tbat report can show that it contains, in reference to a particular individual, any statement approaching, even, to what should be meant, by ihe term slanderous, not to say maliciously slanderous, and in his pleading Mr Gillies entirely failed' to show there was in it anything deserving to be so designated. In. the complained of' there was references to an unnamed person as the supposed author of a certain article in the ' Daily Times' , Mr Bannerman admitted that Mr Robert Gillies was the person meant, that a somewhat, current repdrt led him to believe he was its author. Tt is in the earlier - part of the speech that those allusions are contained, when Mr Bannerman was repelling the attack made in that article on him and his brethren in the ministry, and in that portion there is certainly no expression which can warrants hi y be called slanderous ; and Mr Gillies scarcely, if at all, attempted to show that" where the speech deals with the author of said article there was any such term or statement. In its latter part the speech, on its face, bears to be. dealing with the sentiments and allegations, of the "Daily Times.' as a public newspaper, without reference to the author of the article already alluded to, 'or indeed to any individual contributor whatever. And though in his accusation Mr Gillies assumed it, in argument he quite failed to prove that in its latter portion the j speech had any 'reference to the author j of that article. .

. Reason 3rd — The resolution shows that even the majority who carried it, felt that' Mr, Bannerman had made a most unfounded and unjustifiable attack on me, but desirous to shield him, vaguely express themselves as finding that he "may have made a mistake," and that some of the statements may be sufficient to asrgrieve Mr Gillies, which the appellant considers' is a mode of dealing with a serious matter unworthy of a Court of this Church. l

Answer. — The appellant,, as is every I man, is entitled to his own opinions* whatever their weight. If attack there; were, it was on the supposed author of an article in a public newspaper,, makiug an unjustifiable attack on Mr Bannerman. -, The resolution says pointedly, not "vaguely," that Mr Bannerman may have made a mistake, 7 or erred in judgment, in so publicly indicating a certain person as the author of an annonymous production- The, expression was meant to ignore the charge; of moral blame. From the . nature: of the article, its attribution to, Mr Gillies I was sufficient tp aggrieve him ; so also j might some of the terms or 'expressions 'l

of t^e. speech, a thing not to be won.--. | dered"^sjeing Mr Bannermauj -as he j thought,', was dealing with the author^ of uricailedfor," and. offensive statements,; in' reference lio. persons of whom he (Mr ; | f Bahrierinan)^ was one. Yet the terms ; ! used' liiay'W far. from,' slanderous, [„ , 7 j i . , 'Reason^^^.^th.rrr-Because, the ; majority! m Presbytery , have in .the 'resolution. ; complained of dragged in areference to ; me, to Mr Ban-* ;' ne'rmap,. which .cannot be. considered as a paper. in; the. case before the - -Presbyv- . tery— .said letter being thus jdragged in . with the evident^ purpose, of ■. getting an opportunity of finding fault with me, to. my ' detriment and thte - j ustification of Mr Bannerman. -t.

I , Answer.-— To. the imputation of motive making, up the latter half of this reason, no !; reply is.' offered., The lette r [ referred to was^ clearly, a paper in the case. . It was not dragged, it forced itself in. It bears on. its : face that Mr Qillies wroteit under the belief it was : a step he. required to take to have his case in, due form before the Court. It begins. thus :—" I beg to give you notice that it is my intention to accuse you before the Clutha -presbytery in June next of so and so.;" and) near . its! close says: — v I find from Clerk, of Presbytery that this, notice must be sent you." • -As' notice, of accusation it had, undeniable right to be laid; op -the -table pf Presbytery. Interspersed with the ; statements of notice, jvere. others*' which might be deemed private, but the , letter was avowedly notice; -..0f accusations ; and even were, it. .not, Mr<.Gillies himself .dragged it intp the Court, : by arguing that he might have, fallen from -his intention to:,accuse, had, he received the apology ; he, in , jthat letter, asked of the author of the speech —that his not receiving . the 1 apology asked was: one reason why he was before the Court, thus necessitating Mr , Banner-man, in defence, to lay before, the Presbytery the terms in which he wan asked to apologise, as his reason for not having made it.- There- were therefore two unavoidable reasons why that letter should be read in Court, and • why it stood fairly open to : be referred to in any resolution that might be adopted. • Reason sth.— Because that Mr Bannerman, the party complained of, was notput at the Bar, but allowed to sit as a membp.r of the Court, and deliberate on the decision arrived at, did actually draw up a resplution, which; he suggested to the Presbytery as what ought to be passed, and did make corrections and suggest alterations in the resolution that was passed, whilst the' mover was- reading; it,, and threatened , to demand his right to a formal libel, if a motion proposed by Mr Chisholm and not seconded was carried.

Answer. — According to. the principles of the Presbyterian constitution— a constitution the result of experience, ■talent, learning, disinterestedness,- and untrammelled deliberation, as much so as any other institution now or of past times— according to that constitution an allegation as such, puts not the member of a Presbyterian Church' Court at the Bar, nor is he in any way denuded of bis official right, until the matter alleg*ed is shown to have, a bona fide existence, and to have surrounding it apparent, probabilities enough to warrant the formal attempt to bring it home to the party agairist whom the oharsre is made. During the preliminary inquiry the accused defends himself in his place as member of Court — a position that stands to reason. It would neither he right nor reason to disqualify a minister or other office-bearer, by putting: him to thenar on the ground of allegation, and ere the matter, alleged is de facto substantiated. Mr -.Banner* man. in the exercise of his just right, (had perhnrvs no other course) in his place in Court defended himself from the. allegation prepared against him, but did not deliberate on the decision arrived at The whole charge, as urged by Mr Gillies, was malicious slandrr ; he had no other, nor second count. The Presbytery's finding was, that, in the reported speech complained of, there was no evidence of slander having heen uttered In" reference to that finding there was on -the part of the accused neither deliberation nor suggestion. He left it wholly in the bands of the other members of Presbytery, although legally is as free to act in it as the others If he drew up a proposition . on that matter, it was not read to the Court,' nor in the least acted on. If hepffered any suggestion,- it was on a point outside the only matter specified in the aliegation^—rinmely, as to how far he should be called upon, and he himself was willing, to go in apologising to 'Mr Gillies for the mistake he was led into in adopting the report of his • being the author of the article in 1 the Times,' stating, as be had done .before,; that the large latter part of his speech was nevermeant 'to have any reference to the author of that article. On that outside point no fault could be found, with Mr Bannerman, were he even at the Bar,, for making a suggestion, as to theifdrhr or the extent he should be ; asked to' apologise, nor with the Presbytery -for adopting his suggestion,. as they would' do so on their own independent responsibility But that resolution -was'-cfe facto drawn up, supposed, and adopted, irrespective of any soph; suggestion^ as what appeared a. fair deliverance :on -'the whole, case looked at on its merits, arid though the, arguments used in support 5 and- defence. There seems nothing else in these i Reasons'^serving of notice!; "•'■ '"'• Joiijsr ' ;