page 3

To the Editor of the "Age."

Sir,—Since you admit you do not want to have me "gagged because this is a free country," and I suppose your paper a portion of the "free press" guarding and procuring those principles of fair play, without which no country can be free, perhaps you will grant me space to reply to a leader of your to-day's issue. When I am compared to Autolycus who finally settled to the "profession" of a "rogue" because that was "the most profitable of all;" when I am called a "sort of Infidel Cheap John;" when I am accused of admitting that I am an impostor, and finally when it is urged that my motive in my "hostility to the Sabbath of the Bible" is only an attempt to advertise myself and my "business," which business you declare to be the hawking "of second hand infidel wares;" in common fairness I claim the right to be heard in my own defence, against these and your other accusations. Now in the first place, Mr. Editor, what warrant in fact have you for saying "Mr. Walker is only known as a sort of Infidel Cheap John, who carries about with him wherever he goes a wallet full of scraps of Voltaire, Volney and Tom [generally spelled-Thomas] Paine, and is prepared to prove to anybody who will listen to him that he was consulted at the making of Creation, and is perfectly familiar with all its secrets?" Surely you, who profess to be writing in the interest of morality, the Bible and the clergy, should not descend to the reckless utterance of such charges, unless you are well backed with the necessary proofs of them! To descend to such childish abuse as that just quoted is scarcely becoming the editorial dignity, and its silliness is exposed by yourself when a little later on you aver that I back myself to prove that there never was a "Creation" nor yet a "Creator" to consult with me. As to my "scraps" from the "Infidels" you have mentioned it may not be out of place to ask you when you poked your sagacious eye into my "wallet?" Am I right in surmising that you have been a regular attendant at all my lectures 1 If so, it is reprehensible of you to speak disrespectfully of the ignorant "masses" upon whom such as I are reported to "trade." If not then how are you in a position to judge as to what "scraps" I use, or as to whether my "wares" are "second-hand" or original?

Because I was formerly a spiritualist and have had the manliness to "give it up" in more mature years, you charge me with positive dishonesty; call me a "renegade" because I advocate what now I am forced to accept by evidence as correct, and say that I admit that I am an impostor by teaching down the things that I once "taught up." If this method of reasoning be sound, it cuts the throat of every "converted christian." Not a single convert either from sin or heathenism, but preaches down what he once "taught up," to use your own expression. Paul becomes a self-admitted "impostor" because from being a persecutor of Christians, he accepted Christianity. Luther, Calvin, Knox, and all page 4 the reformers are admitted "imposters" because they preached down the "Romanism" which in earlier years they accepted and "taught up." Wesley was an "impostor" for like reasons. Gladstone is a self-admitted "impostor" because he altered his political views from Conservatism to Liberalism. Sir Robert Peel was a self-admitted impostor because from being an opponent of the Anti-corn-law agitation, he eventually announced his views as changed, and carried the wishes of the Anti-corn-law agitators into effect. Lord Beaconsfield was a self-admitted "impostor" for similar reasons. But why multiply examples. Is it not manifestly absurd to say that no change can be made honestly, and that all who alter or relinquish any of their views must necessarily be "charlatans"? And is it not a manly course to take, when you have discovered your mistakes, to announce them and to do all you can to get others out of them? Is he undeniably an "impostor" who takes this course? When neither Bishop Moorhouse nor the Rev. Chas. Strong will have their recent utterances contrasted, without complaining, with the Orthodoxy of their early youth, why should it be held a crime in me to modify my views in accordance with the growth of my intellect and the accumulation of evidence? And so far as your sneer about the possibility of my becoming a "jumper" to-morrow is concerned, permit me to say it will be time enough for you to complain on that score, when you discover me consorting in believing fellowship with the "jumpers." You may be a drunkard to-morrow for anything you or I can now prove to the contrary, but I shall not accuse you of being one until I have seen you drunk. Exercise then the same fairness to me.

I have never backed myself "to prove right off that there is no such Power" behind phenomena as that spoken of by Prof Tyndall. This is an unfair representation of my position. Behind phenomena I recognise the necessity for their substratum and whether this substratum be called "Power" or "Matter "or by any other name I do not now concern myself, but simply wish to record my protest against the assertion that I back myself to prove that no such "power" exists. If your meaning be that I deny the existence of "God," I again deny that this is untrue. The existence of "God" I neither affirm nor deny, since I contend that until the word is defined to me, it is unmeaning.

I fully admit that what Spencer, Huxley, and Tyndall cannot solve either to their own or the general satisfaction, it would be folly to expect me to finally settle. But if by this is meant that I have no right to hold or express an opinion on the matter, I join issue with you. If I have no right to hold and publicly express views upon unsettled questions, neither have the general clergy of Melbourne, for the same reasons. We are not all philosophers, nor bishops nor editors, but surely we have a right to our opinions and page 5 to the expression of them for all that! And if the truth were known, perhaps after all, you are not so opposed to my views as you now wish it publicly to appear, for I will undertake to quote from your leaders of the last two years expressions quite as heretical as any of my own, and which, if uttered by me, would have been called blasphemy and would consequently have received vigilant chastisement from your own pen.

It is customary, even to a criminal, to credit him with honesty until the charges brought against him are proved, and I therefore may justly complain that you discredit any honorable motives I may have in joining in the agitation for the opening of our Libraries and Museums on Sundays. To insinuate, nay, to positively declare that my motive in what I have done is simply "business" advertisement is mean beyond expression. Perhaps the knowledge that some editors and leader writers, write for pay, and just as they are "instructed," without any reference whatever to their honest convictions, may incline you to a warped judgment of the honesty of others and cause you to throw suspicion everywhere. Under these circumstances there would be some excuse for your charge, but otherwise there is none. Whatever you may say, I claim to be actuated by an honest love of the work I am doing, and I claim, as a citizen, my right to do it. What prescriptive right have you or the clergy to agitate for reforms? Why do you deny me, what you claim for the clergy and yourself in this respect 1 And although the movement is ostensibly set on foot for the good of the working men, by what virtue do you presume to declare yourselves the only friends the working men may have? By what authority do you call those "charlatans and coxcombs" who, whilst they differ from you on some points of theology, are yet anxious to see the reform in question carried out! Is it because it is an insult to Bishop Moorhouse and the Rev. Chas. Strong to have my name mentioned in the same breath with theirs? Without wishing to cast the slightest reflection on either of these justly honored names, I may ask who is to blame for the insult 1 I reply those narrow and bigoted individuals, who, in consequence of their intolerance, insist upon insulting these clergymen, because on this one point at all events, I agree with them. They cannot help my agreement with them, neither can they help my expression of that agreement. And how can it be insulting to them, that I should agree with them? Evidently the insult is not offered by me but by those who persist in urging accusations against these prelates for what they can in no wise help. Then you should abuse these bigoted people, not me, for the insult you complain of. And in like manner if there be those who refuse to do good because there are those working for the same end and whom they dislike, and if there be others who will positively do harm because I am working for an admitted page 6 good, blame them, for the fault is theirs, not mine. I refuse to be the scape-goat of a pack of moral cowards and religious bigots. Either I have the right to do good or I have not. If I have I shall make use of the right, no matter who takes offence at it. If not, I want to know, why not? Those whom I represent are now by no means few, and they positively object to being ignored and insulted, when a movement is on foot in which they are admittedly interested, Their claim is just and would at any other time be readily conceded. They simply claim the rights of citizens to advocate for what they believe to be for their own and the general good. And when you, the clergy or any others insult or deny these rights, and rob them of what you yourselves enjoy, you become foes of liberty and act the part of tyrants.

I remain & c., Thomas Walker. Hawthorn, May 24th, 1883.