MR. BRIGHT CLEARS HIMSELE

Mount Ida Chronicle, Volume VII, Issue 368, 25 March 1876, Page 3

MR. BRIGHT CLEARS HIMSELE

Mr. Br:«lit is not pleased with our critique ot his lecture on " Infidelity und tie god Natau." We understand ho hits placed the manuscript of Ih'm lectures in the editorial hands ot the ' Daily Times.' At least, a paragraph in that paper of Wednesday last eooly invites dilly dilly to ooti.e ai:d he kilbd a process which the said dilly must most respectfully decline. From the telegraphic information to hand we understand that Mr. Bright invites us to peruse his lectures, or depute some one else to do so, in order that we may see for ourselves that his lecture, being nuilt up so largely from the work of Mr. Draper, was acknowledged in the manuscript. Bang of opinion that we have had quite enough of the lectures, we shall do no such thing. We are quite satisfied, as Mr. Bright says so, that he did quote his authority on the platform, and that the manuscript bears out his statement. That is all we contended fur. It did not matter what, the original manuscript contained, for with it we had nothing to du. The question was—What was printed as said? it was evident that the report was not taken down at the t me the lecture was delivered, hut was compiled from the manuscript he fore or after delivery. Hence Mr. Bright, his fgrnt, or his Committee, must have been directly accessory to the publication. It waa therefore perfectly justifiable to take the lecturer to task somewhat roundly for not taking care to acknowledge iri the publication, that he was quoting Draper, li the morning papers failed, the evening papers could have corrected the error. Kven the morning papers, in subsequent issues, could have been asked to correct so grave a mistake without our persuasion being needed. As it is, the object we:had in view is now complete The readerk of the reported lecture in the ' Daily Times ' and 'Guardian* have Mr. Bright's indirect assurance thiu he wan quoting Draper,, and not his own more original thought. Until thi» : ackiHVw'"edyern.ent. warj made there was ji'lair groun t for a (jharge of literary piracy. Since it is made, J.he lecture, goes ty. the 'public on Hs merits, and our quarrel with M r. Bright is ended, If he cho.ipes still to quarrel with, us we cannot 1 help 'it. Had lis acknowledgetny! t hern made earlier we should not have had to regret 1 lie error we were justified in being led into. After all, what had Mr. Bright to complain of? Was not our offence in the very laudable direction of free thought ? Should he not then have leit the ninety and nine in the iJunedin sheep told, and rejoiced in the recovery of the lost sheep in the'wilderness ? Precept in freethouglit,-as in theology,' is evidently a loiij way in advance of practice.