The Gisborne Times PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. GISBORNE, OCT. 16, 1906.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXIII, Issue 1906, 16 October 1906, Page 2

The Gisborne Times PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. GISBORNE, OCT. 16, 1906.

In another column we publish two letters that are by themselves interesting ; but taken together they are more interesting still. The one complains that we have failed in our duty to the public in suppressing details of Mr Bligh’s lecture, which bristled with indelicacies of expression and details of sexual physiology, while the other takes us to task for expressing the candid opinion that moral lessons could bo extracted from bir Frederick Leighton’s now muck-discussed pictures. Here we are then between two extremists who are each endeavoring to advance the cause of sound morals in their own way according to their lights, and we will accord to each the credit of acting and thinking honestly. But their ideas are as wide as the poles asunder as to what is proper in the inculcation of moral ideas. Manifestly, “ A Parent ” would be rudely shocked at hearing Mr Bligh’s description of certain parts of our anatomy, a knowledge of which is not necessary for the purpose of his discourse, while Mr Bligh would apparently have no qualms of conscience in describing in detail the anatomical construction of

tlin living representatives of tho groat painter's subjects. If wo ha'l to cliooso bntwoon tho two our sympathies would dictato a preference for tho view taken by “A Parent” ; but fortunately

this is a free country in all but politics, and wo onjoy tho privilege of having opinions of our own which wo may express without fear of incarceration or other condign punishment than that wo may incur tho disapprobation of our opponents on oithor side. The opinions of tho Times aro not likely to bo biased by any such considerations, and they will always bo oxpressod without regard to consequences so long as thoy are guidod by truth, logic, and common-sonso. 11, therefore, wo have to differ from both our correspondents wo can only regret that they do not take tho same unbiased view of the quoation without going to one extreme or tho other. First, theD, as to “A Parent’s ” strictures. We do not propose to interfere with his expressed opinions, for they aro his exclusive property. At the same time it is admissable to point out that those opinions to be sound should bo based upon a correct conception of fact. Had our friend taken time to consider that pcint ho would scarcely have accused us of going “ from the sublime to tho ridiculous ” by drawing “ a parallel of a nsked woman to a naked fish,” for uo such parallel was drawn except by himself. What we did say was that “ onco teach the student to look for evil suggestions as the solf-righteous prude is in tho habit of doing, and he may in time discover obscenity in a naked fish.” The meaning of that is I self-evident, and yet our correspondent sagely remarks, “ The writer would I like to know when a fish was anything | but naked ” Well, we read of the

time when Eve’s wardrobe did not consist of flounces and frills, and Adam’s mind was quite clear of evil suggestion; yet an unfortunate thing happened and fashions in dress have developed amazingly; but the point to be remembered is that Adam’s pristine innocence has probably never since been equalled, and that frills and flounces have never had any influence in the improvement of morals. Can our friend not see that the whole question is not one of artificial covering but of mental training, and we cheerfully support Mr Bligh’s views in that direction, although we just as unhesitatingly deprecate his method of expounding the notion. To elucidate the idea of mental healthfulness and purity it is not necessary to describe as Mr Bligh did on Sunday night certain physical processes of reproduction, the knowledge of which did not help his youth • ful hearers on the road to a better life. The study of such matters is a necessity only to the medical student for quite a different purpose, and the moralist has no cause to dive into the details of sexual relationships. His special department is the brain and its proper use, and it should be easy enough for him to show that as. the governor of the body it can be trained to control every passion. Mr Bligh recognises this ; but he thinks it necessary to go a long way further than, in our opinion, prudence permits in explaining other details, and that is where we j oin issue with his apologist Mr E. C. Long. Indeed we have no hesitation in saying that the effects of this imprudence on Sunday night were the reverse of beneficial upon certain of his youthful hearers, and the older ones were not edified by it. With the objects of the League which Mr Bligh represents we have every sympathy. They are (1) purity amongst men and boys, (2) a chivalrous respect for womanhood, (3) the preservation of the young from contamination, and (4) “ -« r--“- -r 1 —— sane man can object to any oneof these, or withhold his entire approval ? Every member of our race should become a member of the League ; but there is nothing in them to warrant the discussion of those details to which we have been objecting, and the sooner they are eliminated from Mr Bligh’s lectures the better will it be for the cause he represents. We cast no slur upon his work, as Mr Long accuses us of doing; but we do not approve of Mr Bligh’s method of doing that work as pourtrayed by his extremely injudicious lecture on Sunday night, and as we are uot shocked by Psyche’s picture we can hardly be accused of being superseusitive in that direction. If Lord Plunket had heard that lecture and then penned the letter of approval that is credited to him the opinion above expressed would be still unaltered ; but one can well imagine that indelicacies were not uttered by Mr Bligh in his presence, and there is no reason why he should not be just as careful in the presence of a street arab, Indeed there are reasons why he should be more so, and in the interests of true morality it is our duty to demand that he shall be. Mr Long alleges that “the public of Gisborne are entitled to have put before them an unbiased account of such a thing as a public lecture,” and this he says we “ have failed to give.” Perhaps Mr Long is of opinion that “ the end j ustifies the means ” in this case ; but we can assure him that the report accurately described the lecture, and further details were suppressed because

they were unfit pabulum for our readers When Mr Bligh treats the subject in a way that we can approve we are prepared to give him and his catfse all the support in our power; but we have yet to learn that moral teaching requires for its support the expression of anything that would cause a blush on the cheek of the most innocent maiden.