The Evening Star: WITH WHICH ARE INCORPORATED The Evening News, Morning News, and Echo. WEDNESDAY, APRIL 8, 1891.

Auckland Star, Volume XXII, Issue 82, 8 April 1891, Page 4

The Evening Star: WITH WHICH ARE INCORPORATED The Evening News, Morning News, and Echo.

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 8, 1891.

Tor the causa that lacis assistance, For the wrong that needs resistance, Eor the future in tho distanoo, ■tad the good that -vre can do.

The cablegrams continue to afford items of interest respecting the struggle of the rival factions into which the Home Rule Party is divided. Trie latest advice informs us that Mr Parnell's followers have abandoned their intention of petitioning against Alderman Colbury's election for Sligo. I was probably felt that the objection taken was not sufficient to invalidate the election. The prominent part taken in the contest by the Irish priests suggests another line of thought, and indeed the whole history of Mr Parnell's political life of the last few months, during which he has been steadily opposed by Catholic and Puritan, throws a curious light upon a question often debated by moralists —is the world growing better or worse ?

If the point is to be decided by the action of Mr Parnell's quondam friends of the clerical order, we need not hesitate for an answer. We felt confident from the moment when the Irish leader was first publicly branded as an adulterer, that, whatever might be the immediate effects upon the Home Rule movement, the Irish priesthood would fall from his side. Their defection could not fail in the end to baffle his most strenuous efforts. True, the influence of the clergy might not be strong enough to secure an absolute victory for any man who appeared as a rival to Mr Parnell in the contest for the Irish leadership ; but that they could and would loosen their erstwhile leader's hold upon the masses of the Irish people was a point that scarcely admitted of doubt. The Pope, in expressing his opinion to the Archbishop of Dublin a few days ago to the effect that the Irish people should continue their opposition to Parnell, was only indicating a line of policy we should expect to see followed by an enlightened prelate. The attitude assumed by the Pope is substantially that taken by the universal priesthood. The prelates of the Roman Catholic hierarchy in Australia are equally pronounced in their utterances, and while they are not sparing in expressions ol sympathy for the Irish Nationalists, they make it unmistakeably clear that they wash their hands of Mr Parnell. The English Nonconformists, whose sympathies with Home Rule were largely moulded by Mr Gladstone, are still more emphatic in refusing to acknowledge Mr Parnell's leadership.

But does all this prove that the standard of morals has been raised, I and that the world now attaches more importance to the personal character of *its leaders than it did a century or two ago ? Some will argue that the attitude taken up by both Catholic and Protestant leaders is to a large extent professional, that a good deal of the horror is simulated, and that Mr Parnell is opposed by his late friends for a variety of reasons, among which his moral obliquity is specially dwelt upon because it appeals most to tbe passions of the populace. It is true that the hostility of the Irish priesthood towards Mr Parnell may be sharpened by the fact that he is a Protestant, and the opposition he meets with irom Nonconformists may be accentuated by the fact that the triumph of Home Rule is regarded by many as the triumph of Catholicism. At the same time, we believe these are but minor considerations, and Mr Parnell's opponents are probably not conscious of being affected by them -in any degree. We believe that, apart from all minor questions, the main reason why the late Irish leader is so resolutely opposed is because the moral consciousness of tbe people is against him. A certain section of reformers, such as the Bible in Schools Party, may tell us that the morals of the English-speaking race are deteriorating, but facts are plainly against them. Not only in the Empire, but throughout the civilised world, is the ■6iandard'Of morals steadily rising. It is not a special outcome of either Catholicism or Protestantism, but is rather a homage rendered by these systereis to the enlightened spirit of the ,age. The contrast between Pope Alexander VI. and the present pious and statesmanlike occupant of the Papal Throne, is hardly greater than the contrast between the average English religious leaders of the 17th and 19th centuries. The moral standard of Christian England in the time of the Stuarts would not be tolerated by Englishmen of the year of gtace 1891. Should the blemishes of a man's private life disqualify him from taking ,a prominent place in the political world? It would be false to say such considerations have had great weight in influencing the career of English rulers and statesmen in the past. (Some of the greatest of rulers have [ibeen immoral, and some of the smalltest of politicians have been unobjectionable on the score of chastity,

The official defenders of the faith have often been notorious for immorality. William of Orange was no more faithful to his marriage vows than was the wretched James, whose throne he seized, yet the memory of the former is revered as "glorious, pious, and immortal." The relations of Lord Nelson with Lady Hamilton were certainly not of a strictly platonic kind, but the hero of Trafalgar is enshrined in the hearts of a brave and generous people. It would be easy to select a list of eminent statesmen and politicians of the past whose moral standard was no higher than Mr Parnell's. Their faults were overlooked on account of the splendid services they rendered their country. But none the less were their blemishes regretted, even by their warmest admirers. Mr Parnell's faults would not have disqualified him from office a century ago, but it would say little for our boasted civilisation if we did not require a higher moral standard for men who aspire to political life than existed in the time of the Georges. If a distinguished politician has publicly outraged morality, he should surely make reparation for the wrong inflicted on society before he again aspires to political honours. Sir Charles Dilke pursued this course by retiring from the political arena. The House of Commons lost one of its ablest men, but it was felt that no other course remained open at the time. The Prince of Wales, evidently considering that Sir Charles is purged of his crime, is extending to him a somewhat ostentatious friendship, and the return of the fallen statesman to political life is desired by a large number of constituents. Mr Parnell has not been equally wise in his action, and, while a season of retirement might have been followed, if not by the resumption of leadership, yet by playing an important part in the Home Rule movement, it is clear that the moral sense of bo'.h Catholics and Protestants revolts from acknowledging as leader a man who seeks to make no reparation for his offences, but seems determined to sacrifice the interests of Ireland rather than waive his personal claims to the leadership of the Home Rule party.