CORRESPONDENCE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXX, Issue 9269, 3 August 1893, Page 3

CORRESPONDENCE.

ST. MATTHEW'S ENTERTAINMENT.

TO THE KDITOK. .Sm,—l have not answered the attacks on myself concerning my attempt to please our friends anil to aid our boys gymnasium by means of a play, because I did not think such attacks worth answering. And I am not going to discuss the rights and wrongs of our performance. lam a fairly well experienced duck, ami a good deal of water falls off my back. but when young friends of mine, whom I love, who come to my house, ami church, and school, who have behaved throughout my latest venture in every way like Christian gentlemen, are attacked by Dr. Kenderdine, who does not know them, simply because they come to my aid in a work which is authorised by the .Scriptures, just as much as his own, I begin to be a bit angry. H» insinuates that they are larrikins. He has no right to do so. These boys are no more larrikins than the doctor himself is. Larrikin means blackguard, and the boys and their parents are hurt at the implied insult, in the letter. All the boys who have acted with me are well-behaved good lads, and I will not hear them called larrikins without standing up for them.—l am, etc., L. H. Outkam. St. Matthew's, August 2, IS!)."?. TO THE EDITOR. Sir,—For the benefit of all those who have written disparaging letters on the above, ami who no doubt arc lovers of Scripture, I beg to refer them to Proverbs xx.,,'}, "Itis an honour for a man to cease from strife ; but every fool will be meddling."—l am, etc., Auckland, '2nd August, 189.'?. C.B.M. TO THE EDITOR. Sir, — Unless your correspondent this morning holds that the drama is necessarily bad, and that Shakespere in particular is so, then his contention amounts to this : That a clergyman must be debarred from any as sociation with his fellows, other than in matters of exclusively religious character. li that be what Mr. Outram's critics hold, then we — English Churehpeople— may respect them when putting this into practice, in their own communities ; but, having before this had experience of a celibate and exclusive priesthood, we prefer the example of a greater than either the London or Auckland Tabernacle leaders, and must suggest being allowed to manage our own affairs. I know nothing of St. Matthew's, but feel sure Mr. Kenderdine's commendation will be fully appreciated by Mr. Outiam and his " larrikins."—l am, etc., H.S. Auckland, August 1, 189.').

C ADM AN AS A SLEEPING PARTNER. TO the editor. Sir,—The damaging quotations of the Judge's notes in the Rees-Cadmau trial are producing their deserved effect on the public mind as branding Cadman as a sleeping partner with Smith. This fact is actually admitted by Cadman, who at the trial stated that, "if he chose at any time to come in lit might get half the .shares Smith bought.' And again he stated: "In making the arrangement it was left open to me to join him again (as if he did not fully intend to do so!) if we went out of office to take equal shares if I chose." ("adman's supporters endeavour to make believe that he was entitled to be the buyer, under cover of Smith, because he (Cadman) might shortly cease to be Native Minister; and if so, it would be a hard case for him. Can't see it. There was no necessity for him be coming Native Minister, and a rightminded man would have at once decided "I can't become Native Minister, for J am now mixed up in private native land purchases on my own account." But he accepted the portfolio and salary, probably saying in confidence to himself, as poor humau n. lure dictated, "J will be able to help along Smith's purchases, ami I will retire from same— sub ro*a— it bring left open for me to take equal shares if ] choose, as stated at the trial. In the face of this—his own evidence—to now attempt to say, "since I have been Native Minister I have had nothing to do with the purchase of native lands cither for myself or others," savours of a word called prevarication, least said about the better. I, for one, won't be a ('adman

Whitewash in

HOME RULE TO the EDITOR.

Sir, —The fracas in the House of Commons has been the means of drawing from you a leader and from Dr. Bakewell a virulent attack upon the Irish priests and people. You, sir, like Lord Salisbury, most unwarrantably drag into the discussion the name of Archbishop Walsh. The fracas you attribute to the introduction of the cloture, which you say is a "wrong procedure.'' When this "gag" was applied by the late Government to pass a Coercion Act, for Ireland, robbing her of her constitutional rights and liberties, yon did not aver it was a " wrong procedure.'' Again, like Lord Salisbury, you will persist in making this Home Rule question a religious one. It is not so. The majority in Ireland carrying it on is certainly Catholic ; on the other hand, Salisbury finds strong support from the English Catholics, whose influence at Koine he and his party use for party purposes. The Unionists, through Norfolk and Co., seek the aid of Rome, and then in the most bare-faced fashion rouse the Protestants of the North by warning them against Home. Compared with this runic perfidy is child's play. That it is not a religious question brings me to Dr. Bakewcll's tirade. From first to last: you can detect the domineering and high-falutin' attitude ever displayed towards Ireland by certain sections of the English people, amongst whom is the " Cawtholic" element. To these folk Irishmen are ever inferior, and like the Pharisee of old they stand afar oil and look with tempt upon the despised Publican. Inferior we may be, yet we have more than once compelled thegreatestKinpire in the world to alter its laws, ami will ore long its constitution, too. Dr. Bakewell says, " All the people of property and education in Ireland, with the most insignificant exceptions, whether Catholic or Protestant, are against Home Rule." To this I give an emphatic denial. Are the hierarchy and priesthood " insignificant exceptions?'' This, too, from a gentleman who poses as a Catholic. If they were of the Vaughau kidney they would, of course, be the acme of perfection ; but they are only Irish. Dr. Bakewell concludes his P.S. thus : '' The priests of course have to follow the majority, whose prejudices they share, and from they derive their incomes.'' Surely the gentleman has not studied Irish history. Did the priesthood " follow the majority" in '98, the White Boys, the rising of '48. and the Fenian movement of '67? Decidedly not. They ever warred and preached against secret societies, thereby incurring their hatred. It was only when the above-board and constitutional movement arose that our trusted " soggarth aroons" joined us era masse.. Our "prejudices" they assuredly share, because they have spruug from the very loins of the people. They are the true allies and friends of the Empire. The covert sneer of tint Catholic medico about " their incomes" is cowardly and contemptible, and in the light of history it is worse, it is false.—l am, etc., Auckland, August "J, IS!),'}. Justitia

PROHIBITION. TO TIIK EDITOR.

Sir, —I notice that in your issue of the '2nd, you chronicle the fact that Mr. 0. W. Govett, when presiding at Mr. Isitt's lirst meeting in New Plymouth, stated that lie was opposed to prohibition. It is only fair to Mr. isitt to state that one or two of his chairmen professed themselves, before the close; of his meetings, convinced by his arguments, and whether this was the case or not with Mr. Govett. I am unable to say; but he was certainly sufficiently interested to attend every meeting, while Mr. Richmond, according to his own statement, attended the lecture on "Compensation," strongly prejudiced against the speaker's position, bub frankly admitted that a strong prima facie case against compensation, had been made by the lecturer. All the Prohibitionists of of this city ask, is that their advocate may have a fair hearing, and for one, I hope that those who hold opposite views, will seize the opportunity that Mr. Isitt affords, of stating their case at his meetings.—l am, etc., August 2,189:5. Prohibitionist ELECTIONEERING TO UTS. TO thk EDITOR. Sir,—l think it a piece of cool cheek for paid touts to visit private houses, and ask the occupants who they are going to vote for. What is the use of the ballot box, ii these touts are to be informed how we art going to vote ? In my own case, 1 told the canvasser that my vote would be recorded iu the ballot box. Such importuning should be suppressed in every shade, shape, and form.— I am, etc., |VoTER,