Archbishop Croke and the Payment of Taxes.

Auckland Star, Volume XVIII, Issue 79, 4 April 1887, Page 2

Archbishop Croke and the Payment of Taxes.

By tho San Francisco mail on Saturday, we havo receivod tho toxt of tho manifesto by Archbishop Croko, which has beon twico roforrod to in our cablo news. When enclosing £10 for the Billon Defenco Fund, the Archbishop wrote:-- "I opposed tho No-ront Manifesto six yonrs ago, bocuueo, apart from other reasons, I thought it inopportuno and not likely to bo genorally acted upon. Hud a manifesto against paying (axes been issued at tho timo 1 should have supported it on principle. I am in precisoiy tho eamo framo of mind now. Our line of action as a people appoars to me in this respect bolh suicidal and inconsistent. Wo pay taxes to a Government that uses them no! for the public good anil in accordance with tho declare- wishes of the tax payors, but in direct and doliberato opposition to them. We thus supply a stick to beat ourselves with ; we put a whip into Iho hands of men who use it to lash and lacerate us. This is suicidal in presencoof tho aotualstateof thingsinlrolantl ; itisin consistent besides just now. We run plans of campaign against bad landlords to stop what thoy cat! thoir rout, aud wo make no uicvo whatever against tho Government that pave horso, foot, and dragoons for protecting thorn, and, enforcing thoir outrageous oxactiuiis. Our money goes to feo "nil food a gang of needy anil

voraciois lawyers, to purchase bludgeons for policutucn to bo used in smashing (ho skulls of our poople, and gonerally for tho support cf a foreign garrison and of native slaves, who hato and despiso everything Irish and ovory genuine Irishman. Tho policeman is pampered and paid ; tho patriot is persecuted. Our enforced taxes go to sustain tho one; wo must further freoly tax oiirself to defend tho other. How long is this to bo tolerated ?" Tho loiter was brought under the notico of tho Govornmontby a question asked in tho Wnnsn of Commons wlion Iviiniatn— stated that tho loiter was under consideration. Tho subsequent treatment of the letter is apparently convoyed in tho following despatch to the ''New York World," dated March 2nd: "A prominent Parnellito stated in the lobby to-night that the Government have caused it to be rrmdo known to the Nationalists that Archbishop Croke will not be prosecuted. At the eamo timo it is suspected by tho Pamellites that the caso has beon prcsotitod by tho (>overnment to the Vatican and an admonition to tho Archbishop suggested."

A fow days later (according to a cablo despatch of March !)th) tho Archbishop repudiated tho idea that his letter was intended to incito tho Irish poople to a general non-payment of taxes. No moution of this is made in the American despatches.

Tho Archbishop's letter is no doubt a vory strong ono, but anywhoro outside of Ireland it would be regarded as no etrongor than men ordinarily employ to denounce a Government which is nonrepresentative of tho wishes of tho people. We assume that in any explanation which the Archbishop may havo mudo he would insist that the construction to bo placedupon the letter wassimply that a pooplo ought not to be taxed for a system of government which was obnoxious to them. The language employed was perhaps injudicious considering tho excitctl state of foeling in Ireland, but in any other country 'it ia not considered a vory serious matter to urge that obnoxious taxes should bo opposed. General Buller, the epocial emissary of tho Conservative Cabinet, appears to have employed language quite as much calculated to incite tlio people to continue their resistance of tho authority of tho existing law. In his evidence boforo the Cowper Land Commission, ho said :

"Tho law should look after tho poor; but instead of this, in Ireland, it has only looked after the rich. That at least appears to mo to be the case " On being challenged for this eaying by Lord Milltown, General Butler repented : " There is not much law in this country, but, what law thcro is seems entirely on the side of tho rich. Rents have been too high, and it is tho pressure of high rents, according to tho prices of agricultural produce, that causes the trouble, and there ought to bo a stay of evictions wherever equity demanded it." " Nobody," ho doolared, " did anything for the tenants untiltheLeaguo was established, and when tho landlords could not lot their farms they were forced to consider questions of ront. As to moonlighting he denied it was a portion of the machinery of tho leaguo, The moonlighters were ueually bandß of idle fellows out of work, who got into tho habit of roaming around tho country at night, raiding, foraging and doing a little robbery on their own accounts. A groat many moonlighting affairs ariro from family disputes." He quoted numerous instances in support of his assettions.

There has, of course, been no suggestion of ajprosecution against the blunt General, but Lord Salisbury's Government havo considered it advisable to doal with him as thoy did with Sir Robert Hamilton—promote him elsewhero.