The Evening Star FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 1872.

Evening Star, Volume IX, Issue 2796, 2 February 1872, Page 2

The Evening Star FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 1872.

The Most Reverend Bishop Moran has replied to our remarks of Tuesday. He complains that the Dunedin Press do not defer to the clergy, and that it is sneering, infidel, and insulting to them. We can easily understand that this style of invective is intended to have its use. If it were true, the Press would deservedly fail to exert any influence whatever on public opinion. It is p*U't c >i the plan oi

every skilful advocate to weaken the evidence of an opponent; and in Courts of Justice, where great liberty is allowed to counsel, very unscrupulous use is- made of this privilege. Break down the character of a witness, and his testimony is worthless. If the Press can be brought into contempt, Society falls into ecclesiastical thraldom. On this ground only is the Most Reverend Bishop’s artifice worthy of notice. In his reply to the charges already stated, he adds those of ill-breeding and want of courtesy in not according to him his distinctive title. We beg to assure the Most Reverend Bishop that we intended no disrespect, but regarding him in common with all the clergy as a learned man, wo addressed him, as we should like to be addressed, without reference to office: for we hate to bo always in the shop. However we will try not to offend in future in that respect. Wc are afraid, in regard to other matters, our duty will not allow us to bo so yielding. If the Press has ever sneered at what a clergyman has uttered, it has not boon because it was spoken by a clergyman, but because of the nature or surroundings of the sentiment enunciated. For instance, we may have expressed ourselves strongly when a clergyman professes to believe in a religion, the first principles of which are to inculcate the duty of according to others, liberty of thought and action ; and when in direct violation of doctrines that he teaches, he has come into a community and asserted the light to place fetters upon mens minds and doings : or when preaching the duty of kindliness of demeanour one towards another, and so guarded a use of the liberty of speech as to say nothing that ought to offend, the very same lips or pen has emitted the bitterest gall, and put forth words that act like a fire-brand on society, setting man against man, and Christian professor against his brother. Of course, his Lordship, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Dunedin, is incapable of such inconsistency, excepting at the bidding of some unseen power ; and therefore not being a responsible agent, the charge does not apply to him. It is true that through him, as the mouthpiece of that unseen calumniator, scientific and literary men are certainly charged with being enemies to religion, the Government schools are reprobated by the Church, Freemasons are publicly denounced and excommunicated : but the Most Reverend the Bi-shop of Dunedin surely does not see as we do that ihese condemnations are contrary to the very principles of the religion he professes to teach. Grunted that he, as he has told his flock, has not moved _ of his own authority in the matter —which we quite believe—the explanation only relieves him personally from what he terms the sneers of the Press. His Lordship tells us that he differs altogether from our views and principles. There can be no doubt of this, and it is just on this ground that he should not expect us to call that good which we believe to be evil, nor to he silent when we feel it our duty to speak. The Most Reverend Bishop assumes the right to call the Press “ infidel.” On the principle of the religion that he teaches, he is bound to allow to another the same liberty of speech he claims for himself, and therefore he cannot grumble if we term the conduct wo hj ive described —of preaching one doctrine and practising another—inconsistent. We have never had the privilege of hearing the Most Reverend Bishop preach ; but having a pretty fair acquaintance with the text-book on which his Church professes to base its doctrines, we cannot make these contrarieties of speech and action agree with what it teaches. He must not therefore complain about the use of the expression “ believes, or professes to believe.” It is said that faith governs the conscience, and therefore, when a person teaches one thing and does another, there must be a hitch somewhere. Either he violates his conscience by his conduct, or professes what he does not believe. Wc leave his Lordship to settle that with his own Church. But whatever the Most Reverend Roman Catholic Bishop of Dunedin may assume to the contrary, we assume the right to express our opinions on matters affecting the social welfare of the community. It is not competent for liim to enter the lists with the Press, and then complain because its writers refuse to view all matters from his stand point. Taking into consideration the difference of position between the Press and the sectarians he represents, it must be a sort of dog and fish fight, for he refers to the authority of a section of the Church which we do not acknowledge. But that has nothing to do with purely social matters, such as secular education. In the mind of the Press the clergy are like all other men, fallible; and their opinions have a right to be subject to examination, to approval or condemnation. If they preach one thing and do another, they must expect to have their professions doubted,

The Weather, —During the present dry weather it is extremely difficult to obtain water for drinking or culinary purposes in Lawrence. The Superintendent.—His Honor and the majority of the party who accompanied him on the trip to Stewart’s Island returned by the Wallace to-day. Professors Black and Macgrciror, left the party at the Bluff, intending, we believe, to return to the island on a botanical and geological expedkion. Dire.—A tire occurred at Tuapeka Month, last Wednesday morning. About eight o’clock flumes were observed proceeding from a house, occupied by Dr Mailler, and before assistance could he obtained the whole building was consumed. A man named Brown is in custody, on the charge of wilfully tiring the premises, and from the evidence adduced before Mr Simpson it appears that he had twice threatened to burn it down. Fatal Accident. —Information was brought to the Cromwell police on the 29th ult to the effect that a Chinaman, named sin Ken, had been accidentally killed in the vi inity of the Fraser River, about eight miles from Clyde, on the previous Sunday, it appeal's that the deceased, along with four mates, had been engaged in gathering scrub on the face of a sleep bank, or cliff, and that by some means a large stone became detached aiid rolled down the declivity, striking the Chinaman on the head, and inflicting such injuries as to cause death. Pedestrianlsm. Advantage was taken of the large gathering of people at the Tuapeka Races to get up a series of footraces, The first was between Coppin, of Dunedin, and Maidment, of Lawrence —distance 150 yards, for L 5 a side—the former being declared a winner after a closely-con-tested spin. A few days afterwards Maidment ran Hudson 150 yards, in Ross place, Lawrence, for L 5 a side, and heat him ; and the same day c ane off victorious in short spins with Milhui, of the Blue Spur, and one O’Brien. Maidment being dissatisfied with the result of his race with Coppin, challenges the latter to run him 150 yards, with a yard’s start, for I 5 or L2O a side ; and Coppin expresses his willingness to run him month from the Ist instant 100 yards, 150 yards or a quarter of a mile, or 200 yards or half a mile, for L2O or LSO. ’ The “ Evangelist.” —This month’s “Evangelist” contains a paper on “Lay Agency in the Church,” which does not need comment : one by Mr W, D. Stewart on the “ Law of the Sabbath Day,” which does : a long report of the proceedings of the Synod, and some other papers of greater or less interest. The “ Law of the Sabbath ” advocates the inforcement of the provisions of the Act of Charles the Second, passed in l(s7o|by which it was attempted tomake people pious by a long list of penalties. The arguments in its favor are peculiarly legal and unconvincing, framed upon an assumption that the “State” has a religion, and therefore the right to compel everybody, excepting some whom it exempts in its special grace, to observe that form which the majority dictate. “ Toleration in thinking is of the highest importance,” says Mr Stewart. We suppose on the principle that what cannot be restrained must he allowed. Of course, “toleration” implies the right to repress; hx.it thought being intangible, the State cannot piufidi a inauTor thinking, so Mr Stewart concedes that privilege, and confines his recommendations to the' material—that which a man docs. We have no doubt Mr Stewart means well, hut there is a wrong way of goinrr about a right end, and we cro not thijjf a BiU of pains and penalties the best way of creating a love for religion, although it may easily rouse antipathy to a class of sectarians who wish to have them enforced. To our thinking, more liberty and less meddling with other people’s doings is the great , want of the present day. Mr Stewart reminds us of the observation in the lead- r published on Wednesday from the Scotsman, “ some people feel that their consciences are violated if they are not allowed to violate other consciences.”