page 2

Statement of Defence.

The defendants, by Edwin George Jellicoe, their solicitor, say:—

1. They admit that they wrote and published to his Grace Archbishop Redwood the letters set out in paragraphs 3 and 6 in the plaintiff's statement of claim, but they deny that they published them, or either of them, or any part thereof, maliciously.

2. The words set out in paragraphs 3 and 6 of the statement of claim were not written or published with the meaning alleged by the plaintiff.

3 The words were written and published by the defendants without malice and in the belief that they were true, and under such circumstances as to make them a privileged communication.

Particulars are as follows:—

The New Zealand Typographical Association, referred to in paragraph 2 of the statement of claim, is a society formed for the purpose of watching over and fostering the general interests of the printing trade in Now Zealand, and of promoting the welfare of its individual members, and of acting in conjunction as far as possible with Trade Union Societies in and outside the colony, and it became right in the interests of the printing trade in New Zealand, and in promoting the welfare of the members of the said Society, that the Society should inform Archbishop Redwood, as being the proprietor of the newspaper called the Catholic Times, and a person interested and entitled to be informed thereon, of the system upon which the said newspaper was being printed and conducted, with the view of having certain social evils remedied; and the defendants, in the honest belief of the performance of their duty as President and Secretary respectively of the said Society, did inform the proprietor of the said newspaper of the several facts and matters contained in the said letters.

4. The statements of fact contained in the said letters, according to their natural meaning, apart from the innuendo alleged by the plaintiff, are true, and the opinions expressed in them, whether right or wrong, were honestly held and expressed by the defendants.

5. The alleged libels are not in fact defamatory or libellous, but are honest expressions of opinion by the defendants as officers of the New Zealand Typographical Association as aforesaid.

Filed and delivered by Edwin George Jellicoe, of the City of Wellington, defendant's solicitor, whose address for service is at the office of Messrs. Jelliooe and Glascodine, solicitors, Custom-house Quay, Wellington.

Opening his case, Mr. Gully said the action had arisen from an attempt made by the Wellington Branch of the New Zealand Typographical Association to coerce plaintiff into joining their Union, and it would necessarily involve the question of how far Unions were justified in going in the exercise of their legitimate rights. Trades Unions were admittedly entitled to combine for the purpose of improving the status of their own members, and had the power of enforcing obedience to their own laws as between themselves, but they had no right to interfere improperly with or attempt to coerce persons independent of their Associations into joining. That was a distinction to be borne in mind in considering this case. If Trades Unions had some wrong, they had within the limits he had suggested a perfect right to use among themselves all proper and reasonable methods to get other persons to yield. It would be seen how far beyond reasonable limits defendants had gone in this case. It would bo necessary to give a brief outline of the circumstances under which the alleged libel had been committed. The Catholic Times was and always had been a non-Union paper. It was published first of all by Messrs. Lyon A & Blair, but in [unclear: 1886] was published as an independent affair. [unclear: Evises] had been connected with the paper since [unclear: March,] 1889, partly as editor and partly as manager. [unclear: At] the time these transactions took place be [unclear: held] both positions The story began in July, [unclear: 1890,] when the Wellington Branch of the [unclear: Typographical] Association for the first time approached [unclear: Evises] with the object of persuading him to make [unclear: the] Catholic Times a Union office. For a time [unclear: the] negotiations were carried on legitimately [unclear: and] justifiably, and did not go beyond what might [unclear: be] termed proper limits. Counsel then sketched [unclear: the] transactions, which were afterwards detailed [unclear: in] evidence, and referred to a number of [unclear: letter] which passed between the parties during [unclear: 1899] leading up to an interview, at which it was [unclear: promised] by plaintiff that the subject would be [unclear: considered] definitely early in the following year. [unclear: As] interval of eight months ensued, during [unclear: which] nothing was done. On the 19th of May, 1891, [unclear: the] Typographical Association proceeded to [unclear: communicate] with his Grace Archbishop Redwood, [unclear: will] the object of obtaining a personal [unclear: interview] Their answer was that Mr. Evison was [unclear: controlling] the paper, that the matter was within his [unclear: proper] power, and that the Archbishop did not see [unclear: any] reason why it should be taken out of bis [unclear: hands]. The Association then suggested that they [unclear: should] have an interview with Mr. Evison, as the [unclear: Archbishop] refused to communicate with them. [unclear: Erson] asked them to state in writing what [unclear: the] grounds were on whioh the deputation wished [unclear: the] wait upon him. The Association wrote to [unclear: the] effect that they desired the Catholic Times to [unclear: be] worked in accordance with the rules of the [unclear: Typographical] Association. Evison wrote in [unclear: reply] that as he had no intention of altering the [unclear: erising] arrangements, he must decline to [unclear: recive] the deputation; that his motives for not making [unclear: the] Catholic Times office a Union office were [unclear: gracefully] given to the two deputations which [unclear: called] upon him in July and August of the [unclear: preview] year; and that the recent strike and its [unclear: disastrd] effects, from which the office was [unclear: suffering] common with other businesses, was an [unclear: addition] reason why he could not disturb present [unclear: business] arrangements. The Association had a [unclear: further] communication from the Archbishop to the [unclear: effect] that he approved of the position Mr. [unclear: Evison] has taken up, and that he considered that Mr. [unclear: Erai] was the proper person to decide what was [unclear: toll] done. After this nothing more was done, [unclear: eit] by writing or by word of mouth, until the [unclear: art] letters, the subject of this action, were [unclear: written] The question for the jury was whether the [unclear: asrt] letters were of a character to justify a [unclear: veraenr] against the defendants for damages. The [unclear: defendants] discovered in 1891, and after [unclear: that] negotiations, that Mr. Evison was not a proper [unclear: person] to communicate with, and stated that [unclear: they] would publish the correspondence.

Mr. Jellicoe submitted that there [unclear: was] publication in the newspapers.

Mr. Gully—No; but there is a threat of publication.

His Honour—The publication relied [unclear: up] is the sending of the letters to the [unclear: Archbiahq].

Mr. Gully—Yes, your Honour.

Counsel then proceeded to quote from [unclear: the] letters of September, and suggested that [unclear: the] meaning was that Mr. Evison was a little [unclear: to] hard in the mouth, and did not suit the [unclear: digen] of the Association; that the manager was [unclear: not] proper person to communicate with; and [unclear: the] they would be glad if the Archbishop [unclear: would] appoint Borne other person to communicate [unclear: with] them. Why the Association refused to [unclear: communicate] with the manager he did not know, [unclear: he] it looked as if there was a suggestion that [unclear: Evias] should be got rid of altogether. On the [unclear: 20th] page 3 September the Association made a final request, in which they referred to the Pope's Encyclical, and utterance of Cardinal Moran, and proceeded to insinuate that Evison had prostituted his honesty by having in the past been a Freethinker, and accepted now the editorial chair of a religions paper. The Association threatened to publish the letters in the principal newspapers of the colony. Counsel asked what right these people had to write to the proprietor of this newspaper, and suggest that the paper was not being conducted in a proper way? They stated that it was a degradation to communicate with the manager, and threatened that, unless their request for an interview was complied with, they would publish the letters in every newspaper in the colony. They said that the paper was conducted by a onager or overseer under the "sweating" system, and they had in no way withdrawn or modified these statements, but had repeated thorn. Counsel then went into an explanation of the term "sweating," and said that it involved a case where a middleman made an unholy profit, and, according to the Sweating Commission, it was grinding the faces of the poor. It meant that the middleman took advantage of the necessities of his employes, and ground them down. The other side would scarcely dare to say that that was done in the Catholic Times office.

Mr. Jellicoe—Is this the opening?

His Honour—My opinion of an opening is that the counsel should state what he is going to prove, bat I cannot prevont an address to the jury. Probably the most telling address to the lory is the first.

Mr. Jkllicoe—What I object to is this, that my friend is telling the jury what X am going to

Mr. Gully said he would leave that. He would wove that there was no sweating whatever in the discreditable sense of the word. The facts were that Cooper, who was the registered printer, andertook with the late Mr. Bunny to print the paper for £14 per week, and continued to do so until the present time. The amount paid to the hands was less than the Typographical Union laid down, but there was no improper profit made out of the management, and Cooper would say that he never made more than reasonable wages, and sometimes perhaps a little less. Counsel then detailed the circumstances under which Cooper brought out the paper. It had been suggested that this alleged system of sweating was withheld or concealed from the Archbishop. They had absolutely no foundation whatever for such a Suggeation. If true, it would have been most discreditable on Evison's part. It was absolutely untrue that anything was concealed from the Archbishop. On the contrary, the relations between the Archbishop and Evison had always been satisfactory. The next item was the statesent that it was a degradation for the defendants to communicate with Evison. They said be was an individual who at different times had conducted a Preethought journal, lectured upon a Freethought platform, and ultimately accepted the management of a religious paper. He thought that was a kind of comment better left out. When they got to discussing a man's religious belief, that was going beyond proper limits. What right had they to say that Evison was not honest in holding Freetbought views, or conmentions when he undertook the management of this journal? That was a matter for his employers. If the Archbishop was satisfied, what light had this irresponsible body to interfere? Evison had promulgated certain views, and had lectured on a public platform, although his lectures were upon general subjects as well as Freethought. And why not? The nggeation was that he was false to his own conscience in conducting the Catholic Times. If so, it was not true. Evison had always been an advocate of Home Rule and State aid to Catholic schools, and these were the cardinal points on which a paper of this kind was conducted. The Archbishop knew Evison's views, and so far from turning his cost Evison was only carrying out the views which be held before he took charge of the paper. Counsel deprecated any body of persons interfering between employer and employed as these people did. When they suggested that it was a degradation to communicate with Evison, they suggested that he was a person of bad character, and that he was not a fit person for any honest man to have anything to do with. How long had they been in finding this out? There were about twenty letters between the parties and two interviews. They had communicated with him for about 14 months, and then suddenly discovered that he was not a fit person to communicate with. That was the libel, and it was for the jury to say whether he (counsel) had been straining anything too far in putting his construction on the letters. If the statements contained in the letters were true, could the Archbishop in all conscience continue Evison in his employment? He (counsel) submitted that if there was any sweating going on and if Evison was not fit to communicate with, and not fit to hold the position he did, that was a fair and reasonable test as to the nature of this libel. Had these matters which were charged against Evison been true, it was perfectly plain that the Archbishop would have found it inexpedient to continue Evison's employment on the paper. That appeared to bo obvious on the face of it. If in communicating with the Archbishop, the officers of the Association had confined themselves to matters relevant to the Catholic Times joining the Union, they would have been within their proper limit. If they had only been argumentative or used a few strong expressions with a view to persuade the Archbishop to come into their Union, nothing would have been said about it; but the attack was on private character, which could not be relevant as to whether the paper should join the Union or not. What on earth had it got to do with Trade Unions whether Evison was a Freethinker or not. It was a question of personal fitness between Evison and his employer. The attitude the Association took up must be considered outside that legitimate for Trade Unions to take up. It was for the jury to consider whether it was really a justifiable way of carrying out the principles advocated by Trades Unions, and whether it was not on the whole a discreditable charge against Evison.

Joseph Spence Evison, plaintiff in the action, said that he was manager and editor of the Catholic Times, and had occupied the position since l889. The terms on which he was appointed were £5 a week, which was afterwards increased to £7. It was understood from the first that the amount should be £7 as editor and manager. The salary was reduced when a separate editor was appointed, but when he again took the dual position it was increased to £7. His duties were the entire supervision of the office, the purchase of material, &c. The agreement with Cooper was made about the time he became editor, or a little later. It was made by the late Mr. Charles Bunny. Cooper was printer and publisher. The contract was made at his (witnesses') suggestion, and was to the effect that there should be a certain fixed weekly sum paid to Cooper, out of which he should provide all labour for composing and printing the paper. The office despatched the paper. Cooper gave Mr. Bunny, and, he thought, himself a statement of what the work could be done for and leave a fair profit. Witness satisfied himself that the page 4 sum was reasonable, and Bunny made the agreement. Cooper was to provide the men. He was able to tell whether they were satisfactory men. Witness was not to be troubled with the complaints or engagement of the men. The agreement was to relieve witness of dealing directly with the men. No complaint was ever made to him. The Typographical Association first approached him in 1890, when they requested him to meet a deputation, which he did on July 18, 1890. The deputation consisted, he believed, of Mr. M'Girr (President), Mr. Henriohs (Seoretary) and D. P. Fisher, who was a member of the Board. [A shorthand report of the interview was put in.] A lengthy dieoussion took place, at the eud of which witness explained the particulars of the manner in which the office was conducted by Cooper. The object of the deputation was to induce him (witness) to make the Catholic Times a Society office. It was said that witness had not got competent men—not proper journeymen. He asked what was to be done with hie men if he discharged them and took on Society men, and he understood that they were to take their chance. He did not remember the exact words. Understood that if the men had not committed certain offences against the Society they might be admitted on payment of a fine and proving their qualification. He replied that he would thoroughly consider the question, refer it to his employer, and communicate with the Society at a later date. Received a copy of the rules. [Put in.] At a meeting on 28th July received a verbal estimate from D. P. Fisher as to what the paper could be printed for by Union labour, which amounted to either a few shillings more or less than what it was then costing,.£14 8s. At this interview he told the deputation substantially the same as before—that he would see his employer, and communicate with them later on, but held out little hope of any alteration in the arrangements being made that year. Suggested that they should again approach him in 1891 if nothing were done. Sent a letter stating that existing arrangements could not be interfered with that year. [Letter and reply put in.] Nothing more occurred until May, 1891, when Henrichs wrote to Archbishop lied wood, requesting him to receive a deputation, to which he (witness) replied. [Letters put in. 1 Received no farther communication until receipt by the Archbishop of the two letters complained of, which His Grace produced. A letter was sent to the President or Secretary by Messrs. Campbell and Gray, dated 30th September. Had never received anything beyond his actual salary.

It is alleged that at one time you conducted the Rationalist, a journal published in Auckland?—Yes; I both edited it and conducted it.

During what year?—1885-86.

About a year altogether?—I think, with vicissitudes, about a year.

You were also a lecturer at one time, and lectured over a considerable part of New Zealand?-Yes.

Upon what subjects?—On various subjects.

Including lectures on what is called Freethought?—On what is conventionally called Free thought.

Are you what is commonly called an Atheist?—No, and never was.

You have published views on what is called Freethought?—Yes.

Your own views?—Yes, at the time.

When you joined the Catholic Times was any stipulation made as to advocating the tenets of the Catholic Church?—Do you mean dogmatic tenets?

Yes.—Certainly not; nothing of the sort. I was simply asked whether I could conscientiously support Home Rule and the Catholic [unclear: education] olsims.

Did you consent?—Yes, I conscientiously [unclear: ocu] consent.

Had you done so before?—I had [unclear: invariably] advocated Home Rule. I had lectured on [unclear: it] subject years ago, and had also always held [unclear: the] parents had a more sacred right over their [unclear: children] than the State. I consider that [unclear: Catla] schools are entitled to State aid under the [unclear: present] system.

What meaning does the word "[unclear: sweating] carry in your mind?

Mr. Jellicoe—I object, your Honour. [unclear: The] is no meaning put upon it in the [unclear: statement] claim.

Argument ensued as to the meaning of [unclear: the] word "sweating," which his Honour [unclear: said] the jury could interpret themselves.

Examination continued—

You were perfectly aware of the [unclear: arrangement] made with Cooper?—Perfectly aware.

What has been the practice in the [unclear: payment] the men weekly?—A cheque has been drawing [unclear: upon] the Archbishop for the whole of the [unclear: salaries] to wages, but a detail has been given of how [unclear: a] amount was arrived at.

Does that show the items of the £14 8s?-[unclear: lately] because the sum has not varied. [unclear: If] sums varied they would be stated. If there [unclear: ti] a variation a memo, would be sent to [unclear: account] the variation.

Then I understand the actual salaries are [unclear: same] on the statement?

Mr. Jellicoe—Including the details of [unclear: the] £148s?—No, that would appear as wages. [unclear: It] call that wages and everything else salaries, [unclear: just] for the purpose of book-keeping.

Cross-examined by Mr. Jellicoe—

You say you lectured throughout New [unclear: Zeland]?—Yes.

Between years 1883 and 1886?—Yes.

In many plaoes?—In a variety of towns.

In the course of your lectures did you [unclear: adnw] any of the opinions you professed in the [unclear: Rea] alist paper when you conducted it?—Oh yes.

On the public platform?—Yes.

At the time you conducted the [unclear: Ratum] newspaper did you deny that Christianity [unclear: is] part of the law of the land?

Mr. Gully—Mr. Evison stated quite [unclear: clear] that he did conduct the Rationalist and [unclear: express] the same views in it as when he lectured [unclear: upon] public platform I think he should not be [unclear: the] to go into details.

Mr. Jellicoe—My friend asked the [unclear: write] to Bay this—" I never was an Atheist."

Witness—I do not recollect saying [unclear: the] Christianity was part of the law of the [unclear: land] that it was not.

Did you not in your publications strike at [unclear: a] very root of Christianity?—What is the very [unclear: less] of Christianity? I have no desire to fence, [unclear: tali] these questions it is necessary that both [unclear: ei] should know what they are talking about,[unclear: also] am not going to answer before I know what [unclear: you] mean.

Did you in your publications deny the [unclear: exists] of almighty God?—Never.

Did you deny in your publications the [unclear: divist]; of Christ?—Yes.

Mr. Gully—I submit that this is not [unclear: releii] or decent.

Mr. Jellicoe—This gentleman has come [unclear: he] to complain of the last portion of the letter, [unclear: so] I am defending my clients.

His Honoue—Itisnot needed to justify [unclear: for] statement of your client, Mr. Jellicoe, that [unclear: the] witness in the box has at different times [unclear: condoa] a Freethought journal, lectured on a [unclear: platforms] page 5 advocated Freethought views. It is not denied. It is true—everything is admitted.

Mr. Jellicoe—He made the statement that he never was an Atheist, and advocated certain principles which I shall put in evidence to contradict.

His Honour—We are going into theological questions, and I must say that it is very unfortunate that such topics should be mentioned here. Perhaps Mr. Gully's question as to Atheism was improper. I deprecate most earnestly the line of cross-examination, and could not imagine that it was necessary for the defence.

Mr. Jellicoe—Did you, in your publication, ridicule the Scriptures?—Portions of them.

Did you ridicule Almighty God?—You must explain that phrase. What do you mean?

You are editor of the Catholic Times?—I want to know your definition. I say no, I never ridiculed Almighty God.

Mr. Gully—Mr. Jellicoe should give the exact expressions which he charged witness with [unclear: tling].

Mr. Jellicoe—I am not bound to produce any documents.

His Honour—The difficulty is this: The particular conception of Divine nature may be quite inadequate and unworthy—not only unworthy, but debasing, degrading to a particular writer. What he aims at in these conceptions it would not be fair to read as aimed at the existance of God or not. I hesitate, because I do not dare-I am unwilling—to utter in Court words that would imperfectly express his meaning, because it is not the proper place. I see the wittoss's difficulty. He says, "First define your terms before I give my answer."

Mr. Jellicoe—Suppose I show that the plaintiff, as editor of a newspaper, wrote a blasphemous libel, surely that would support the conference in the letter of my clients when they anyj they considered it a degradation to be referred to him?

His Honour—I do not think this matter refers to the particular degradation implied by the defendants. It seems to me that the degradation meant is that the Archbishop, instead of Miring the deputation himself, turns them over to an inferior (the manager), just the same as it night be considered a degradation by a person to have to correspond with an Under-Seoretary instead of a Minister.

Mr. Jellicoe—Apart from the plea of truth, this gentleman has come here to ask for damages for an attack on his character. Suppose I can show by cross-examination that he is a blasphemous libeller, surely that is a matter for the jury to consider when estimating damages.

His Honour—That issue is not raised at all.

Mr. Jellicoe—It is a question of damages. No issue is required.

His Honour—As to blasphemous libel, that items to me irrelevant. As you deny the [unclear: jninendo], your position is inconsistent with your pleading

Mr. Jellicoe—They are not irrelevant, I submit. Surely, sir, I am entitled to show what the plaintiff's real character is.

His Honour—If you accept the innuendo as truly stating your meaning that he was a dispraceful character, and that he was so disgraceful best your clients could not have converse with him, your position is inconsistent with your own [unclear: leadings]. There is a difficulty about it. I do not agree that the words within parenthesis in the letter bear out the meaning imputed to them by the plaintiff.

Witness—He asked me if I ridiculed the Scriptures. I have ridiculed the anthropomorphous conception of the Deity, not the Deity itself.

Have you not in your papers and lectures exposed the Christian religion to ridicule?—The good parts of the Christian religion, no. What were considered the weak parts of the Christian religion and its practices, yes.

Have you ever scoffed at the Roman Catholic Church in your publications or in your lectures?—Not in my lectures, nor do I remember doing so in my writings.

Not in the Rationalist?—I do not remember doing so.

Under what name did you edit the Rationalist?—" Ivo."

This is a copy of your paper, edited by "Ivo," printed and published by Joseph Evison?—(Paper examined by witness)—Yes, that paper was conducted by me.

Counsel read an article from the paper as follows:—

"The Holy Virgin Mary.

"It must be extremely gratifying to all our Christian friends to learn that the Virgin Mary is still quite lively. A few years ago she was knocking around the village of Knock in Ireland. Now the irrepressible young Jewess has been playing a little game of hide and seek in a gooseberry bush, or thicket of some sort, at the village of Corano, in the blessed land of Italy . . . . . We gather some very interesting information from the above narrative. 'The Virgin Mary' is now according to the most moderate computation 2000 years of age, but not a wrinkle mars her damask cheek.—She is just as young, beautiful, and attractive as when Isaiah fell a victim to her charms. Then again, it is quite refreshing to notice how considerate is Jesus Christ to his sainted mother.—He has most generously 'allowed her once more to come on earth.' What a dutiful son he is! He never did allow himself to be tied to her apron strings on earth, and now just as a sort of quid pro quo, he kindly permits his mother to walk to little Jesolina. Once more, someone has given the mamma a new dress. She is now clothed in blue,—white has evidently become unfashionable in heaven. Mary is no doubt the leader of the fashions in the 'hupper suckles' of celestial society, and woman-like she wants a change. But can it be that the ladies there wear blue flannel petticoats? Had Mary's white dress gone to the wash? Had she appeared to Jesolina en deshabille? Perish the thought!—No it was a new dress made by the most accomplished modiste in the New Jerusalem, and it fitted so admirably and looked so charming that Mary with natural feminine vanity wanted to shew herself off. . ."

Mr. Gully—My friend has held out the suggestion that this was written by Mr. Evison. My friend ought surely, apart from the nature of the publication, to have ascertained whether Evison wrote it or knew of it.

Mr. Jellicoe—He said he edited and conducted the Rationalist.

Witness—I say so now. But there was a syndicate of four persons who contributed to it. I never wrote such rubbish as that.

Then there is a page of Bible contradictions; did you write that?—No, I copied it.

Mr. Jellicoe—I put this paper in.

Mr. Gully—I submit that my friend has read something to the jury which has not come from Mr. Evison. He read it to the jury, and wishes to put it in, not because this article is relevant. But because there is something else in the paper. He conducted the paper the same as he conducts the Catholic Times.

Mr. Jellicoe—I ask for the paper to go in.

His Honour—The whole paper?

Mr. Jellicoe—Yes.

Witness—I swear I did not write what Mr. Jellicoe has read. Although I was editor and page 6 conductor of the paper, there was a syndicate of four who had an equal right to publish matter.

Mr. Jellicoe—Supposing you, Mr. Evison were referred to a person who was like this writer in the Rationalist, would you consider it a degradation?—Certainly not, if the writer was honest in his belief.

Is this your paper of the 30st November, 1835?—I should like to see it.

Mr, Gully—Surely Mr. Evison should see what he is alleged to have written.

Mr. Jellicoe—I am or cross-examining the witness.

His Honour—If Mr. Evison conducted the paper, he is responsible for what appeared in it. Of course it must not bo assumed that everything in the paper is written editorially. But prima facie is there not enough to justify Mr. Jellicoe—can I stop it being read to the jury? I would willingly do so if I could find legal warrant. I think from a public point of view it is decidedly scandalous, and being scandalous I would like to prevent it, but I am bound by rules of law in the matter.

Mr. Jellicoe (to witness)—Do you know Bishop Luck, of Auckland?—No, I never saw him.

Was he Archbishop of Auckland?—No, I believe he was Bishop of Auckland.

Did you attack Bishop Luck in the Rationalist?—I have no remembrance whatever of doing so.

Did you over attack what was called the "Pastoral" of that Bishop?—I do not remember it, sir.

Under what name did you write in your paper: "Ivo?"—"Ivo." Now, here is a letter signed "Ivo."

"An Open Letter.

To Mr. John Edmund Luck, who, without sufficient warrant, and therefore illegaly, styles himself Bishop of Auckland.

"Sir,—The church to which you belong has a pleasing fiction, to the effect that it received its power from St. Peter; that saint who is chiefly remarkable for having denied his Lord. Whatever gift you may have received from the sainted poltroon in question, modesty was certainly not one of them . . . . . You cannot be modest because you call yourself a Bishop! . . . On Sunday, October 18, you caused to be read in the churches beneath your control a document, which, in accordance probably with the eternal fitness of things, you term a 'Pastoral.' You are doubtless aware that the word pastoral has at least two distinct meanings. It is used to signify a poem describing the manners of shepherds. It is employed also to denote a diction of a spiritual pastor. You use the word in its latter significance; you would be equally justified in employing it in its other purport, because your pastoral now under notice carries strong internal evidence that you regard your flock, not as composed of reflective men and woman, but as dumb driven cattle . . . . . . . But while I may pity your weakness; while I may condomn your irritability, and must condemn your brutality of expression, to which I am about more particularly to refer. I cannot but feel flattered thereat; for by your very intemperance you reveal to me that not only is the Rationalism yon so virulently attack in your pastoral, becoming a power, but that you know and feel its power. Whenever, in history, your church was frightened, it, like all weak, wicked, and wanton things, became cruel and vindictive. Let us congratulate one another that the time having passed away once and for ever, when it was possible for you to use on 'heretics' the favourite weapons of your faith—the hangman's rope and the faggot—you may now only display your feebleness and your fear by a liberal employment of virulent but harmless epi-thets. So much clear gain at least has [unclear: Freetbound] grasped, inasmuch as you can no longer [unclear: torti] our bodies, and must be content to essay [unclear: only] wounding of our minds. Sourrility is, after [unclear: all] acceptable exchange for the stake; 'tis [unclear: easier] smile at the billingsgate of a bishop than [unclear: at] rack of an inquisitor. . . . Now the [unclear: sentai] I have just quoted from your pastoral is, doubt, eminently convincing and [unclear: consoling] your sheep—your dupes; but I ask you to [unclear: for] for a moment your clerical habit of mental [unclear: ergling], and to tell me, as from one man of [unclear: the] world to another, whether you really believe [unclear: that] this rodomontade of yours really [unclear: deceives] sensible man. You talk of 'carnal man.' [unclear: What] are you, a dignitary of Rome, so angry, [unclear: and] resourceless, that you are actually [unclear: compelled] descend to the pitiful cant of [unclear: Method] 'Carnal man!' Come, define your terms. [unclear: What] mean you by the expression? Do you attach [unclear: to] special significance to the word carnal: [unclear: To] carnal, I take it, is to be fleshly, sensual. Do [unclear: you] a priest of the moat fleshly and sensual [unclear: priestb] in the world, dare to use such a term [unclear: regard] any other body of men? I [unclear: have] that the literature of France teems [unclear: with] the foulest accusations against your [unclear: priesthood] know that, before the French Revolution, you [unclear: priesthood] was the vilest and most corrupt [unclear: you] the face of the earth. I know; yes, [unclear: and] know, all this to be true, and yet you [unclear: do] smuggle in this word carnal with [unclear: reference] Freethought, in order to further hoodwink [unclear: the] you get your living by hoodwinking. [unclear: Fie!] John Edmund Luck, your methods are as [unclear: steal] untruthful. Will you, in these columns or [unclear: rtf] where, compare the lives and morality [unclear: of] a dozen of New Zealand Roman Catholic [unclear: pris] with any dozen of prominent New Zealand [unclear: every] I thinkers; the priests to be named by [unclear: me] infidels by you? Come, here is a test, [unclear: will] you accept or refuse it? I will answer for [unclear: you]. It will decline publicity, as your church [unclear: has] declined it; and you will bo wise so to [unclear: do.] Your church, sir, is founded on Faith, and [unclear: Frui] is a rock. Therefore, your church is [unclear: founded] a rook. How beautiful! how truly [unclear: sublia] but still how illogical! Mr. Luck's [unclear: churchs] rock; Mr. Luck says so, what further [unclear: will] would we wish? Freethought is froth; '[unclear: tis] Luck says so, and that is conclusive. [unclear: But] Luck writes a long pastoral about the [unclear: dun] which his rock is exposed from—what?[unclear: -to] froth What a soft, soft rock Mr. [unclear: Luck's] must be; or shall we say how [unclear: laughable] logic, and how mixed the metaphors of [unclear: this] herd who feeds bis lambs on a rock. [unclear: Next] Mr. Luck, I will do myself the honour of [unclear: fin] criticising, not only your pastoral, but [unclear: the] of your church, your rock. At presently [unclear: his] only endeavoured feebly to point out that [unclear: it] absolutely necessary for a popish priest [unclear: to] his own temper beneath control, and [unclear: that] mon sense may be dispensed with by one [unclear: was] like yourself, not a 'carnal man.' If I [unclear: have] persuaded one of your dupes to think, I [unclear: shall] well content.

"Ivo."

Did you write that?—Sometimes copy [unclear: made] up by other people, who signed [unclear: my] I do not deny that I edited and [unclear: conducted] paper.

Mr. Gully—Surely, my friend cannot [unclear: suppose] that he is creating a favourable [unclear: impression] this sort of thing. The paper should be [unclear: put] witness's hand, so that he may say [unclear: whether] wrote what was referred to.

His Honour—The only reason I do [unclear: not] is this: If the matter was not written [unclear: by] Evison, it was published in the paper [unclear: which] edited, and it will turn out that he was [unclear: to] page 7 extent responsible for it. He admitted that the wticles are Hilly and foolish. They had as little wit as decency. These, be says, were not written by him, but by some persons connected with the paper; but prima facte I must take it that ho was responsible for what appeared in the paper. He might say that not only were some of the articles not mine, but they were put in for some person by my employers. Even then, I am not certain that he was not responsible by remaining in such employment. Therefore, I cannot say that Mr. Jellicoe is not justified in assuming that Evison was responsible, more or less, for what appears in the paper. I would willingly stop this sort of thing if I could, but the case is in Mr. Jellicoe's hands, and I cannot interfere.

Mr. Jellicoe (to witness)—Is that your letter?—My answer is that I take responsibility for that letter. It is an answer to Bishop Luck's pastoral alluding to the Freethinkers of Auckland II being the froth and scum of society. I did not write the whole of that letter, but I take full responsibility for it. We have never attacked until we were attacked.

". . . . We do not deny God; i.e., so long as the word God represents nothing to us; so long as it is a word that is not the correlative and: expression of something clear and distinct. We do not propose (to use the words of Mr. Bradlangh) to 'tilt against what may be nothing nowhere.' We believe that there is one existence; or substance (call it what you like), which is i eternal and infinite, and of which we only know [the modes; men, animals. Colonial Bishops, what not. If God is alleged to be other than this existence, then we say there is no God. We do not look upon the Universe as an uncaused event, or as a something caused out of nothing. We leave such assumptions to Theists. We say the universe is eternal, that it had no beginning, and can have no end. Modes of existence may not be Eternal, but existence is. We do not believe that God first created himself out of nothing, and then out of the nothing remaining made something and called it the universe. We leave such theories to 'competent thinkers,' and to Mr. Hadfield "

Did you write that?—It was contributed by all sorts of persons.

You supervised it?—I was editor.

You see the note at the end?—I think the note] is mine. They were prosecuting us for selling the paper on Sunday.

[Artiole referring to lecture of Miss O'Gorman, the "Escaped Nun," put in.

You have heard of Miss O'Gorman.?—I have heard of her, but never heard her lecture.