SEDDON-TAYLOR CASE.

Gisborne Times, Volume XVII, Issue 1400, 10 March 1905, Page 2

SEDDON-TAYLOR CASE.

(To the Editor Gisborne Times,* Sin,—lt is not my. p.urp.oso to burden your columns with endless repetitions of my letter of ult., and irrelevant Mb Joblin not stated In liis last letter that be had been 44 years in tho colony', I would have attributed his weakness in this direction!' to the enthusiasm o£ extreme but aa it is, that excuse can hardly be made for him by yo.ur readers, and so compels notice from me. —STo answer as briefly as possible perhaps it would be as well to tab: Mr Job 1 in’s letter, seriatim : 1(a) It surely would place me in almost as ridiculous a position as i&jfchi: •gentleman is in, if I were to iaboi to explain the ” point " in. my firs! letter, so I would suggest" to avoir this predicament that Mr it over another dozen times or soand perhaps by that time be wjli h< able to' partly .understand it. (b) In spite of your correspondent’s ela borato denial under this head,;- 3 must reiterate that “be absolutelj misqjuotcs me” in his previous effusion and again refer him' to mj first letter.' I cannot but feel,- re grot that your compositor Heptfvet this gentleman’s “ reasoning i&y- o some of its force,”- for otherwise I might have discovered a quality which ip both' his letters a is' s<

microscopic .that I'have failed to\3e teefc it. (c) It is interesting ic know the views of the people in. anj t locality, ‘‘and the causes to which IVL U.oblin’s friends/ attribute ■‘s happy; settlement are particularly so,, as other people’s opinions ap--1 pear to only partially coincide wjt-I 1 therm/ (d) J can quite upderstani that, Mr- Joblin; -finds the quoha&or *1 purporting tr -to be from .the Bill of Rights “ not free from, ambiguity,,” as it is an exact quotatir i (which h-e can verify, on referem anil those who 'drafted the origi probably did not contemplate • time, that it would receive Mr lib’s criticism Some 200 year/? wards. lam particularly ini. Cd in historical matters, and sb... enjoy discussing, the-subject with'thi: gentleman, 1 but. out of- consideration for you, Sir,.- J must refrain,, although Tam unable briefly to explain So Mr r Joblin Shat.' his -re- 1 marks on / the Religious DisabilKcies of the Nonconformists were some/ Jwhat irrelevant, and that be ’’confused the issue. This .question was dealt with in the same year ’ (1689' by the To-leration Act. S-utely he not admit that the legislators < those 'days were greater "than'~M Seddon, and even that genbietnai Pannot compress all reforms Into, on 'Act of Parliament. .; :- ' lYoiur correspondent taking my ‘reinark respecting legislators literally and feeling amused thereby, denotes such refreshing verdance- Shat A really have not the heart to shatter the illusion enjoyed by this unsophisticated gentleman, especially a-s it really needs no comment.

As this correspondence must bo wearisome to your readers and unprofitable to yon, Sir, E must thank yon for all the space you have.,- aecorded me, and trust that it -Will now c!ose.~l am, etc.. £" • ‘ -i\. W. LISSANT CLAYTON--