The Nelson Evening Mail. THURSDAY, JUNE 12, 1873.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume VIII, Issue 140, 12 June 1873, Page 2

The Nelson Evening Mail. THURSDAY, JUNE 12, 1873.

Wb were much surprised to find a Nelson contemporary giving publicity,without any comment thereon, to a" violent attack on Bishop Suter which originally appeared in] . the C'hyrch Herald,: and ',. has/J-been. e'x-.j tracted thence and; embeilished r with\flip-' * pant additions of his own by: the Melbourne correspond eint of 'the Otago. Daily ' Times; The article in question, which overflows" with falsehoods that must be attributed either to r wilful misrepresentation Or reckless ignorance, is unworthy alike of a gentleman and j a Christian;- and the shower of coarse abuse poured upon the bead pi Jthe devoted Bishop is as pretty a specimen of the odium theologicum as we have heard of since the fire and stake have gone out of fashion. That the Otago Times ehould have published its Melbourne correspondents letter reproducing this* egregious sally is, perhaps, to be attributed to nothing worse than Carelessness, although, as a matter of fact, it has given _ publicity to a careless slander,, but for* an editor of' a Nelsdn newspaper, who must have known full well how utterly false :, were ■ the. assertions contained therein, to publish it without any remark whatever is altogether inexcusable. The libellous article is ; worth looking into, and seems to invite dissection and criticism. "Originally, Dr Suter was, we believe,' an East end clergyman,, one of the well-known ' Beggars of Bethnal Green,' " Mark the sneer implied in the words "an East end clergyman." Perhaps the Church Herald might tell us where, better than 'amidst the closely-packed masses of poverty, ignorance, and vice, which are to be found in an East end of London parish, a clergyman could follow , the example of ..his., Divine Master who found few rich, but many poor to follow him; ■ -But even in that Eastern parish, Dr Suter, says the Church Herald, "did nothing,' ' ; ."VTe do not profess to be intimately acquainted with Bishop Suter's . career in London, but ; this 'we do know, "that on J his • leaving that **East end" parish /he'" received ; from all classes of his parishioners, from scholars, • -from- teachers, from workmen, and frOm many others,* testimonials of various kinds, from paper to plate, and. such things are iti ot usually presented by the poor to one who has done nothing for them. It, may savour .of; impiety .to appear to differ from so religouely and charitably conducted a journal as tbe Church Herald seems to be, but really we are rather inclined to suppose that that pious period!- ,. cal might be mistaken in its assertions: than to believe that Archbishop Tait ; should, have gone put of his way to! "- specially,, appoint "; on e of his clergy-, men even ■;,* to a, colonial Bishopric for "doing nothing." But not only are we told that Bishop Suter* 1 "did nothing" in the East end of London, Abut we,) who know better, are asked to, believe that. " he has done nothing in New Zealand but eat and drink, veg"etat-e,■..and; v g'r6w;\older.'• , The editor of the Church Jierald,yiQ presume, finds that he toogrows;older; and possibly he is not above '- eating and drinking, so. tbat even if one who was an East end clergyman, but is now a Colonial Bishop, does the same, we can scarcely think that he V should be ; blamed) for it, even by,, so severe and competent a critic as the writer .of the tirade of abuse before us, but when - he accuses the Bishop of " vegetating," he does that which must tickle ;the ; fancy of eyory * ; Nelsbnian. We ; who knW Bishop Su ter, which the writer in the. Churchy Herald evidently does notj- can. tell a different. tale of him. Spending freely of his substance in relieving distress; willingly /undertaking long and laborious journey s J by Jand j- and J sea, on foot andonhorsebaDk,,with:the view of making himself fully acquainted* with the wants of the various ' part s ; fof ;;i|is extensive diocese; looking on no labor as too arduous, bb 1 sacrifice too -great for the one set purpose of his life-!— this is the sort of vegetable existence that! Bishop Suter has passed in Nelson. ; We do ■ not -desire to be looked upon as bigoted admirers of

the Bishop. We h^ve frequently^iffered widely^Q.m him in option, ai^,d^y%had |bccasi|)i»tio laraelt wb|fcifppeWK|>® to ijae a jfyfcn&pi jlij^menl^iand a^*a%fen%B of Hactinffiia wrilibgs, swings, aitfd-tfctions, but we cannot stand quietly by and see him made tho subject of so wanton, unproyoked, and undeserved an. attack, Had t6e|wri;£er of the Jkrtieie tf^fereTf.i^ IMb destfousdf displayfng tfbw tittlrlyiinor^-rft he was of the true character of the man he was so roughly, handling, he_. could. not have done "so 'more '"effectually than by alluding to Bishop Suter ,as, an "jdle, : ju - ?- competent, and insincere 'CoibniaFofiiciali" Such a charge needs no refutation from us. It ~ia completely answered by the Bishop^s- life, in. VNelapn. f *' .Idl%j.,iDcom^ pet.ent, and insincere Colonial omcials, says the Church rH-erald^,^ ff ppgt*r io be well arid effi6ie[ntjy' s^ubbe r d.'f |Spi ; we think, juaght jEnischievousfan^ officious critics, who undertake 10 write on subjects of which thoy know nothing whatj ever.