CORRESPONDENCE.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XLII, 23 January 1907, Page 1

CORRESPONDENCE.

AN IRISHMAN <3N IRELAND. To. the Editor. i Sir, — As Nelsonians are to have the tenderest portion of their anatomy — their pockets^ — touched by the impassioned eloquence of the gentleman from Erin, it appears timely to give your readers ah opportunity of learning from the pen of ait educated and loyal Irishman the real cause pf Ireland's poverty and ■ discontent. I refer to Michael J. F. McCarthy, 8.A., of Trinity Colldgc, Dublin, who in 1902 published his book entitled "Priests arid: People in Ireland," in which he examines tha forces wielded by the priesthood upon the daily lives of the peopled In ihi introductory chapter he strikes the keynote to the work in the following passage : — "I am a Catholic ; I am an .JrishSian ; I have a right to speak. I am. in favour of religious equality and toleration in the fullest sense of those .terms. I admire the British for their. Extraordinary tenderness to the small Catholic minority in Great Britain. - I. condemn the policy to which the priests have now committed themselves- in the plenitude of their power, because that 'policy promises to even.tuate either in revolution or in the undermining of individual and corporate morality, in the;, emasculation of. the people's chara-fter,. , and in the rancor- 1 ous -wasting ; or "AaUbnSl decline. 1 ' Mr McCarthy rejects very decidedly the doctrine that'Hhe particular form of. faith held by the majority of the peo-j pie has anything to do with the "stag-] nation, decay, '; and hopelessness which Professor Idannix, . of Maynooth, recently described as having settled onj Catholic Ireland. , Neither can these eviU, he argued, be traced to political causes , because the. same laws prevail in prosperous Protestant Ireland as in degenerate Catholic Ireland without an iota of difference.-" Nor is there any § statute in force in the Green Island to prevent the R.C. Irish citizen from do-| ing everything which is being done by the Protestant -i citizens of the United Kingdom. Therefore the lamentable condition of Catholic Ireland cannot "be properly attributed to the. injustice of laws in force. The main source of the evils from which she is suffering is to be found in priestcraft, and its absence is observable in alj. those countries where a high degree of prosperity exists, and where manliness of charac- ( ter 13 predominant. I am forced to . this conclusion, .then, that it is folly for us R.C. Irishmen to deceive ourselves ! by attributing Catholic Ireland's degeneracy to causes which are but secondary ,and arc found not incompatible with progress and prosperity elsawhere. It is priestly interference and domination in Catholic Ireland, beginning in the infant .school and ending with the legacy for masses after' death that will be found to be the true and universal cause of that universal degeneracy upon which we so commiserate ourselves." Referring to the deplorable condition of Connaught, the population of which province has fallen from 846,213 in 1871 to 649,635 in 1901, Mr McCarthy asks whether it is not a standing disgrace to the vast army of priests and- nuns who fatten upon the decaying province? He goes still further, and declares that "this immense clerical organisation is the primary cause of the people's ignorance ai?cl misery, .and declares "that if the religions (orders) were removed from unhappy Connaught tho province would at once begin to- advance without any further ameliorative measures .. whatever. 1 ' Now, sir '.this scholarly,- patriotic, and courageous Irishman being the judge, it is. not Home (Rome) ltule lieiaud 1 needs, but freedom from the cruel tyrj rany of religious traditionalism and superstition. The- southern portion o,f the "Land of the Shamrock ' is crushed under the heol of the tfio of ignoraneo,.- whUUy ,and pritbtism, a,nd the greatest of those is priostism. j Yoursi etc., ' ' JOS.,J. FRANKLYN. Nelson, January 21, 1907. . ■ RE COLINGWOOt) AND NORMANBY BRIDGES. . To Thij, Editor. I Sir, — I presume the City. Council will in the course of a^ffcw days discuss the I matter of reinstating the above brid--1 ges. The loan has been carried, but by a very small majority, and we trust the money wili be spent wisely, and in the interests of the ratepayers. In regard to Collingwood Bridge, it is well known"- by practical men that this bridge is in a dangerous state, quite unsafe for heavy traffic, and speaking with some knowledge of the matter, I am convinced that unless something is done immediately there may be a serious; perhaps fatal, accident, which may cost the ratepayers some hundreds in the form of damages. Owing to some of the joists being rotten there are oue or two weak places in the bridge. These , should' be supported in some way until the permanent repairs are carried out. Now, sir, in regard to what is to be done to Cpjlingwood Bridge. The Council liavg before them a plan and estimate which provides for all neces- > sivy I'opaira; and also for remodelling J the bridge, ,speakirtgi from memory, the Engineers fstimatp for which is £480. Then therocis before the Council a re- ■ port on tho bridge by Mr Hill, who is an expert in bridge -givork. This gentleman was asked b^ the City Council Ito make a thorough, examination of I the bridge, and to report stating what he considered necest^ry jn the way of repaiis to make thJ& bridge perfectly safe for heavy traoo. Mr Hill stated that now joists gjad decking were required, and also at few minor repairs. This would nut.tjie bridge in a thor- ' ough state ; of repair fit tg cavry heavy traffic for' some, years. MY Hills estimate -for the. work ia goingr thing over? £3oo.'. Jfftw, sir, j'f £3Qt} would put" Collingw,pqd Bridge In a thorough state of repair why should the Council spend • £43).- I stated in the Council it wopld be a waste of money to remodel -.the bridge, and in this opinion I am /supported by more than one. export. If it wero going to build -a new bridge, then we might adopt the new desigiy, but to carry it out in regard to' Ccfllrngwood Bridge would bo' most absurd and a waste of money. Let us hope the Council will in the Interest of the city decide to do what < fs really necessary, and- nothing morei In regard to Normanby Bridge, I do not think, it is necessary to go to a large expense. If this bridge is restored to its original -state I believe it

would answer all requirements for. the next 10 or 15 years. Most of the heavy timber will have to be removed, but.the piers are there, and the whole of the new decking is on the site. Such bei in" the case, I cannot see why the reinstatement of Normanby Bridge should cost a very large sum. If the traffic has so increased (or is likely, to in the near future) as to require a bridge of sufficient width to allow two vehicles to cross at the same time, then now is the time to make, provision for it, and in that case use Steer in place of wood. For my own part' Ido not think the traffic warrants such an expenditure. At the statutory meeting, in reply to a remark by the writer, one of the Councillors stated that the City Council were not committed to anything in regard to what is to be dons to Collingwood Bridge. I* would have been more to the credit of the Council if this statement had never been made. The mater of repairs to the bridge has been under consideration for about three years. Plans were prepared" .for the work, the carrying out of which was opposed by several of the Councillors. Then a special committee, composed of two practical men, was act up, who reported to the Council, and later on the Council appointed Mr Hill, an expert in bridge work, to report. Neither of these reports recommended any alteration, to the bridge.; I make bold to say that had there been ■ -three; or four practical; men in the , . Council' Collingwood Bridge would have been', repaired (without the alterations) ■-< long ago. ... -I I lours, etc., E. WEBLEY, , j Collingwood-st., Nelson, 1 January 21, 1907. ', 1 ■ !