The Lyttelton Times.

Lyttelton Times, Volume VIII, Issue 491, 18 July 1857, Page 4

The Lyttelton Times.

Saturday, July 18

One of our correspondents to-day complains in an offended tone that we have not published his, letters ' for reasons best known to ourselves.' We take the opportunity of reminding the public that those who are legally responsible for what may appear in a newspaper have every reason to be very watchful, (if for no other reason than their legal responsibility) as to the use to which correspondents may wish to put their columns. Now we think that no one will accuse us of having ever refused insertion to any letter on political grounds, or because it reflected on the public conduct of public men. Such subjects are freely open to the closest scrutiny and the severest comment and the English press has always been protected in giving publicity to the opinions of all men on public matters. Indeed it is to the general conviction that any complaint maybe expressed publicly through the press, that we owe the feeling of condemnation and disgust which arises amongst English readers, on perusing any attack which bears the stamp of personal and private malice.

But while we are always prepared to insert our correspondents' letters, whatever opinions they may express upon men who have put themselves before the public in political life, we beg most distinctly to assert our right to refuse communications which attack individuals on prjvate grounds, or on grounds which it would be worse than useless to drag into newspaper controversy. Of the fitness or unfitness of such correspondence for publication, we, of course, must be the judges. And it is no easy part of the task of editing a newspaper in a small community to discriminate between those letters of our correspondents which ought to be published, and those which ought not. All those whose letters ai-e rejected are offended, as doubtless Mr. Marsack feels himself offended, because we do not think it proper to publish a tirade against the clergy of the settlement. We would submit to our correspondent's better judgment whether such a course as he wishes to pursue is more likely to advance the interests of religion or to exasperate differences of opinion into the violence of sectarian controversy. We will be no parties to such a controversy.

Our readers will have seen enough of the effects of virulent personal attack in colonial newspapers to sympathise with our wish to prevent any approach to them, so far as in us lies. They will doubtless give us credit for not having abused the trust that is necessarity reposed in us.