TO TH3 EDITOB OP THB PBBSB. Sib,—l have just read the correspondence which appears under the above heading in your issue of to-day, and I wish, with your permis sion, to state as shortly as is compatible with clearness, the facts of the case, bo as to set my self right with the public. In my letter of the 12th February I advised on the only question then submitted to mc, namely, "Is the article libellous?" and " Has there been a sufficient publication of it in Christ church to enable the proceedings against the writer to be carried on in this city ? " Both questions I answered in the affirmative. It appears that the notien of prosecuting the writer of the letter was abandoned, and the next question submitted to mc was—" Will a criminal prosecution for libel lie against the directors of the company?" This question I, ia my letter of 9th March, also answered in the affirmative. Now if this hid been all, and that on further reflection I had found reason for changing my opinion on this latter point, I should have been neither ashamed nor afraid to have said so, bat of coarse it woald have been my duty to have said to at oace, and not wait until the preliminary investigation had actually taken place, and the day of trial was at hand. It happens, however, that my opinion on the point has not undergone any change, and that, rightly or wrongly, I still hold the views ex pressed in my letter of 9th March. My opinion, however, on a point intimately connected with the abstract question, and one which materially affects the wholeccaste t nnderweat considerable change, as you will see if you will b?ar with mc. You will also see that I took the first oppor tunity of communicating to Mr Stead's solicitors the fact of that change and the reasons for it; and you will also see the effect of that com munication on the minds of these gentlemen. The catastrophe which has been brought about you have already seen. 