SHAMEFUL OUTRAGE AT CAMBRIDGE AN ATTACK ON THIS MANSE.

Waikato Times, Volume X, Issue 565, 4 January 1876, Page 3

SHAMEFUL OUTRAGE AT CAMBRIDGE AN ATTACK ON THIS MANSE.

A.N outrage, the particulars of which will doubtless be called for by Sir Donald McLean, was perpetrated on the family of the Revd 8 J Neil), the Presbyterian minister residing at Cnmbtidgr, at midnight on the 3lfll December. Tlie parliculars have been forwarded to us by the Royd gentloman himself, aud will bo 'found in .full be loir. If it, be true t hut similar occurrences happening on previous years have been passed by unnoticed, tliero is all the more reason that a searching enquiry should be made into the pre■scnt charge. Sir — Asa minister of ' God, and a sufferer from tlie late nocturnal revelry at Cambridge, I beg jour assistance for explanation and defence. Since I came here, eight mouths ago, 1 have lived on the best terms with all people of every class and denomination, and m writing this, I hire no farourite to praise, uor foo to blame These facts, I think, contain the elements of a dispassionate criticism. On the morning of the New Year between 1 30 and 1 45, my wife and myself were p.roused from a ileep which had bei m short, as my wife wai Tery ill and unable to sleep. We lay for sometime, rather annojed than frighte led by a horrible dm of all sorts of nones. Some of which itemed hko the dischargo of loosely nmmid pistols, but the loudest noucs were cau«ol by a bell, nnd the violent beating of tin vessels. Our annoyance was soon changed into actual terror, ns one or two windowt were smashed in. Force was also applied lo the door, or windows, or both, as we hoard tlie r-ood creak. Believing -(licit it would be better to lot them m, than to allow them to force in, I rushed undressed to the door and opened it. I shall not attempt to giro tho ex&ct words used. I asked them what they wanted and why they broke tlie windows. They said something about the New Year, and monoy for drink. Some one adding that they were Good Templars most of them, but * * * * and fotnething followed I could not hear. I asked the name of the one who stood before mo, and addressed me, and several voices replied " Montgomery," " Caiil Montgomery" This was a rather useless question, but it g*ve me turn to say that I would not gtre tLera anything, and would report them. I then tried to ihut the door, but could not, and one came and stood at the threshold beating more loudly than cfor. At lant I got the door -shut, but the breaking of windows continued. My wife, who, m may be supposed, wai much frightened, rote and removed some article* of value -which werein danger, and ■while doing so another pane was broken. She called to them if they were men, suggesting (hey might be fiendi. One of two, whoae face* we saw for a moment, replied th*t they were men, and to prove it a pane was dashed at her (face which only the window blind ivred her from. After a little more smashing, the crowd went away. Near 5 o'clock we heard one or two people walking about the house and 'talking. in the morning Mr Ashwell railed to see how wo fared, and tell what he and Mr Lammont had suffered— adding that this had boon perpetrated once or 'twice "before. Ai toon ai the office was open T went out to telegraph to Wellington, and met Mr Walker, who had not been disturbed. lie asked me how Mti Neill was, I told him «he wns very unwell, and gsre the reason. He spoke someth n« to the effedt that he did pot consider he should bo doing hiiduty if lie did not take the matter up ; so I thought! After that, perhapt, it may seem foolishness that knowing this was the second or third year such a thiug had happened, I should •end the following telegram to the Defence Minister ;— " Sir, last night & drunken rabble broke in this house, endangered my wife — who was ill, took my borso ; others suffer too. We pray justice now, fnturo security." 1 wrote at th« same time to Major Clare. Since then I have bad to bear » good deal of blame from SubTmpector Watt nnd Serjeant Chitty, for telegraphing to Sir Donald McLenn. This ii natural j natural too that they thould try to put it over on Major Clare. JJut wo have not yet forgot who saved tho bridge, though ho has been unrewarded, nor ytt can wo help comparing thoeo of the AC. in Cambiidgo and Hamilton at that time. More might" bo said, but rerlum utt. I am sorry that I should have seemed to blame anyone, for I did not intend it ; but if there be no blame, none can bo blamed. I am also sorry that Mr Chitty should have charged me, wlrich he virtually did, with an untruth in my telegram, by writing into instead of in. When the »»bble, which I culled drunken, because they wanted drink, acted like drunken people, *nd— as I have iinee learned — hud got drink when they broke in tho windows and did whut I hare described, I havo yet to learn that they did not * break in the house." But why slop at tho fraction of a preposition while 'there is the shameful act storing all in the face. Besid •• Sir D. McLean seems to bo tho one who should know if it were wrong to telegraph t« him, and in his answer the very reverse is implied. I hope that what I ba?e done will cause peace and security, which nothing before done could effect, if it do, it will take some logio to show when in it was wrong to inform the Defence Minister — I am, &c, J. Nkil.i<. Tho Munse, Cambridge, Jan 3, 1876.