MR. VARLEY AND THE REPORTERS.

Te Aroha News, Volume VII, Issue 467, 30 April 1890, Page 3

MR. VARLEY AND THE REPORTERS.

SOME WARM CORRESPONDENCE. (From Auckland Star.) Mr Varley appears to be rather unfortunate with the reporters. Last week ho made such an offensive personal attack upon one of our reporters who had occasion to leave the hall during the continuance of the meeting that we could not reasonably ask that gentleman to attend again, although his reports had been the subject of a letter of warm thanks and eulogy from Mr Varley’s committee to the editor of this journal. We accordingly aHotted for the duty another gentleman, who has had veiy considerable experience as a member of the reporting staff of a leading London paper. The result is contained in the following letter which we received to-day from the evangelist:— . / (To the Editor.) I

Sir,—l am just returned from the evening meeting in the City Hall, and though I am weary with a busy day’s service, and it is past eleven o’clock, I feel it is but right that I should call attention to the unfair and unjust report of my address, and of the meeting also, which appears in your issue of yesterday. Your courtesy and fairness has been to me what I have hoard is usual to public men in your widely read columns. I was the more surprieed, therefore, to read the extraordinary statement to winch I refer. I glanced at the paper m the afternoon, but had not read it with care. I his I have just done, and I cannot do less than express my astonishment that such misrepresentation of my utterances should have been made, never object to fair and truthful criticism, but the statement as a whole, is an entire caricature of what I said, and, moreover, it contains numerous expressions which are attributed to me and which are altogether untrue. I give some specimens, lour reporter says, “The address was the second of a series of lectures on the 1 Times of the Gentiles.’ ” The fact is that it was the first of a series on “The Lords Second

Coming,” and was, as the subject advertised stated it, “A Review of the Course of Time down to the End of the Present Dispensation, Is that end near. I did not say “ that the chronology of the Bible was absolutely correct. I distinctly said “that there was a break in the chronology in the days when the judges ruled in Israel, and that the space of time left out was somewhat between thirty and fifty years. Allowing for this that the chronology of the Bible was substantially correct and as truthful as its histoiy. Your reporter makes me to say that 1 defied anvone to proveto me by any positive fact that the world was yet 6,000 years old. There is not a word of truth in this statement. What I did affirm is that “ t there is no proof that the presence and history of man upon the earth has reached 6,000 years." In other words, no conclusive testimony exists that man is of greater antiquity than that which the Bible assigns in its chronology. _ ~ ~ , ~ Your reporter affirms that I divided time into two parts from the creation to the deluge, and from then to the present. Betoro me lie the notes which I read to the meeting. I made no such two-fold division, but gave six different epochs from the creation of Adam to the birth of Christ. Your reporter writes that I said that from the time of the deluge to the coming of Christ was 4,004 years.” This is entirely without foundation and is pitiable as a specimen of newspaper reporting. Again, I am made to state that the week of days of thousands of years was all but done. We were late in on to the Saturday niwht of the world's existence under the present conditions. This is a jumble. hat I did state was that the well known computation of time in Scripture as a divine ordinance, viz., “one day as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day, showed that we were at the close of the sixth thousand years, and _ late into the Saturday night of this dispensation, an age or dispensation which our Lord described as “ wicked and adulterous.” Your reporter speaks as though the words quoted were mine, when 1 gave them as our Lord’s testimony, xour reporter adds that I stated that we were within 20 years of the time when God was coming.” I never stated this, I did not us« the name of God. What I stated was that “ the times of the Gentiles,” another divine date covering a period of 2,520 years, would run out within 20 years hence. Then, according to your reporter, 1 “thundered against American progress. This is nob true. I stated what I think all must feel to be an appalling fact, that in 1884 no less than 3,377 murders were committed in the United States. In the United Kingdom, with a population of thirty-seven millions, we had in 1884 less than 150 murders* Iq the United States* with fifty--seven millions, there was the awful total mentioned above. I did not affirm that “for every one we British had saved we had damned 000.” Referring to British misrule in Africa I did say “that for every South African benefited by our presence in that country and by our boasted civilization one hundred had been blasted and damned for time and eternity.’ Who can dispute the truth of this? We have had five wars there during the past twenty years, and millions of Afric’s sable sons have been hunted down and stolen by pur forefathers in former years and transhipped to supply the slave markets of the West Indian and Southern States of America.. The statement concerning the behaviour of the audience is simply false. Listen to the following from your reporter: “That hundreds in the audience were in a condition disagreeably suggestive of fainting fits, and subsequent hysterics.” “ Thab from time to time an inaudible bub perceptible expression of dread swept over the huge audience.” “And that some one knocked over an umbrella, with a report like a pistol Bhot, and half the strong men in the room, let alone women, gave a violent start, followed by an apprehensive glance round full of animal terror. Anything more ridiculous than the “ unmitigated balderdash ” which your reportei - haß £ ero written could not well be exceeded. Ib is silly, puerile, and contemptible; In stead of truthful reporting it is ignoranl distortion. The spirit which marks th< whole article I decline to characterise I have seldom read anything, wribtei with worse taste or containing lesj truth. I am thankful to believe thati l ib very rare thab such a paper disgraces thi columns of a public journal in your city I have no pleasure in writing with severity buti in this case it is certainly deserved To attend a meeting in order to write up ; burlesque and gross caricature of the sam is an unworthy prostitution of the function which pertain to a newspaper reporter. Henry Varley. Mr Varley having had his say, we thin ib only fair to give equal prominence to th reporter’s reply. It runs as follows: , , The virulence of Mr Varley’s attack o - report of his lecture makes a few word

of reply necessary. The title of the lecture is the first point Mr Varley pounces on as incorrect. I am sorry about this as my information was obtained from one of the committee who was standing at the entrance. He told me he had not one of the notices with him, but that it was as I stated the second of a series on “ The Times of the Gentiles. It certainly seemed like it, and I was confirmed in my belief from the fact that the lecture for the next day was, “ lhe limes of the Gentiles in which we live not to be confounded with the Second Coming of Christ.” , ~ “ Mr Varley then says thab he never said that the chronology of the Bible was correct. I can only repeat that he certainly made that statement, for it struck me as a good catch-line, and I took it down immediately. True he afterwards branched off and said that there were certain unimportant breaks, bub he again asserted that taken broadly the chronology of the Bible was perfect. Again, as to the statement that the “ world was nob yet 6,000 years old, 1 must affirm that whatever Mr v arley intended to say, he certainly used those very words. At a previous lecture he had stated that there was no proof thab man had been in existence more than 6,000 years, and the more daring utterance about the globe itself immediately attracted my attention. “ The next point on which Mr Varley attacks me is that I stated he divided time into two great parts, from creation of Adam to the deluge, and from then to the present day. There again I consider my report correct. Mr Varley started by. saying thab there were two great divisions, and then, as he very truly remarks, divided the latter up into six different epochs. My report was bo be limited in length, so I merely gave the broader divisions. Mr Varley’s figures and statistics are scarcely interesting or authenticated enough for verbatim reporting as a rule. . “As to the next accusation, it needs no comment. Anyone who reads Mr Varley s own words and then my report of them must see thab they are practically the same. The words are slightly altered, which is unavoidable in a biief summary of a long address, but the sense is the same. As to the fact . that I reported the words, “.A wicked and adulterous generation ” as if they were Mr Varley’s own and not a quotation, I would remark thab he did not mention them as coming from our Lord, bub as adjectives descriptive of the times in which we are living, in his eyes. . “ Then we come to the question of being within 20 years of the time when God was coming. Mr Varley stated that we were within 20 years of the time when the times of the Gentiles would have run out, and then he distinctly said that was the time appointed by the “Lord”—he may nob have said God— for His return to rule the earth. “The next point is an important one. Mr Varley has accused me of distortion, and I now repay the accusation in kind. What is this but distortion of the most gross character ? Here is an extract from his foregoing letter : “Then, according to your reporter, I thundered against American progress. ’ The unfairness of this remarkable perversion will be evident when the enclosed par, clipped from my report, is read. What would we say to the true progress of Russia and Germany, or even that great Western Republic of America, which might at least be supposed to have a perfect government. “ Why! What improvement was there there l he thundered—“ what progress, when in. one year there were, 3,377 murders committed in the one Republic ?” “ Further comment is needless. And all through it is the same. Mr Valley is the last person to find fault for exaggeration. A 1 this quibbling, too, anent exact words in which lie expressed himself, is as undignified as it i 3 unfair. Mr Varley knows —no one better—that it would be impossible to give a verbatim report of his speeches. Not only would such a course be disadvantageous to himself, but two of bis somewhat verbose discourses would over-fill any sheet in Auckland. “ As to the last “ ridiculous ’’ statement, thab many seemed well-nigh fainting.from emotional excitement, I would ask if Mr Varley himself did nob inform us last Saturday thab lie had seen strong men carried out of his meetings in a fainting condition ? “ Bab behind all this . virulence there is a somewhat curious • little story. When I entered the City Hall last night to report I was at once accosted by two gentlemen, one of whom I was afterwards informed was named Ross, whether he was or not. Both committee men asked if I intended to report as I had on the previous afternoon. I replied I should report as I saw fit. They then turned as abusive as they dared, one of them being specially insulting. I determined therefore to see Mr Varley himself anent the report. Afterthe meeting I did so. He was most courteous and kindly. He said he did nob consider it a kind or sympathetic report, but never even hinted thab he imagined ib incorrect. He said he had read ib, but that he was not thin-skinned, and assured me most earnestly and kindly that had I nob mentioned the matter he would never have given the matter a moment’s thought. “Time changes all things,” bub who would have imagined thab such a man. would have changed, or been changed (which?), in two hours’ time ?” THE ATTACK ON REPORTER NUMBER ONE. In view of the tone of Mr Varloy’s letter, which he sent with an urgent request thab ib should be published in full, we think that as the evangelist objects so strongly to to the way in which he has been treated by the reporters of this paper, the public should know how Mr Varley sometimes treats reporters. In order to illustrate this we give the facts relating to the attack on a member of our staff last Friday evening, already referred to. This gentleman, in the course of his duty, has had a pretty good dose of Mr Varley’s eloquence during the pasb three weeks, and he might on that ground have been excused for withdrawing when he had made a note of the scope of the address. As it was, he bad other work to attend to, and was obliged to take his departure. When he rose, Mr Varley broke off from his subject and drew the attention ' of the audience to the departing sinner. “There goes a young man who has had enough of me. He does nob want to ‘ hear what I have to say. No, he is off to > some haunt of sin.” These remarks were in- ■ terlarded with various uncomplimentary 1 epithets. The reporter took no notice of the 3 tirade beyondaquietsmile; butMrVarleyevit dently found that he had made a mistake, 3 for on Monday he sent a note apologising • for what he has said. To this note the re- » porter replied as follows :

“I was somewhat surprised to receive your note this morning apologising for the remarks you made on Friday night at the moment I was leaving the City Hall. In the first place, had I wished for an apology for myself 1 should not have hesitated to ask for it. However, I should have required the apology to be made as publicly as were the remarks to which I objected. But I did not object to those remarks as touching me personally, for I do not think them likely to damage me in any way,

“What I did object to, and do still strongly object to, was that you should impute unworthy motives to any person Bimply because he chose to leave your meeting during the progress of your address. You state that you did nob know me, bub I consider that your conduct was only made woise by your ignorance. I was present to leDort your address and was leaving to attend to another duty. You broke off your discourse for the sole purpose of attacking a person whom you had never' before seen, and whose character, for all you knew, was without reproach. Had I considered your remarks worth the trouble of taking action, I should have done so on the broad ground that any man has the right to protection from impertinent insult, rather than on any personal grounds. You will surely see that your apology to mo personally does not meet the "case. Your best apology would be abstention from such groundless and impertinent remarks in future. I may mention that another member of the Star staff was on Saturday evening last delayed at your meeting,. through his objection to leave under the imputation of wrong motives, and he was thus prevented from keeping an appointment.”