Sin, —Btiug absent for a few days I have been nimble sooner to conclude what I havo to say cm tha abovo subject; and now, perhaps you will kindly reprint Mr motion, with a vhw to the better understanding of what I cm sboufc to utgo. That reniarliable production takes the following shape, to wit—"That the presbytery finds that the notion of tho Chalmers Churuh congregation in inserting, without per mission askeil of received from the presbytery, a clause iv the title deeds of their church exclud ing therefrom iv perpetuity the use of instru mental inusie, constitutes— {L) c violaticn of the terms ou which this congregation was admitted to union with the Presbyterian Church of Otago and Southland; (2) an iufriiigmont of the ad ministrative authority of the Presbytery of Dunediu; and (3) au unwarrantable restriction of the freedom of conscience of individual mem bers of the Presbyterian Church."—(ihe italics are mine.)

Now, my first objection to this motion is that it is, on tho faceof it,absurd. It complains that Chalmers Church congregation ha 3 nob asked and obtained leave from the presbytery to do a certain thing, which thing it declares to ba uncon stitutional. Does Mr Smith really mean to sny that tho presbytery could have givuu leavo to dv what that congregation has done, if his descrip tion of what has been dono is correct? If ho does not mean to say so, then ho is bingularly unhappy iv his method of expressing what percuauce lie doe 3 mean. I trust, therefore, the presbytery will declare a motion couched in such terms preposterous and unworthy of con sideration.
