PASSING NOTES.

Otago Witness, Issue 2006, 4 August 1892, Page 25

PASSING NOTES.

Tuesday's meeting of the Otago Central Railway League did well in promptly snuffing out Dr Fitchett and his reckless proposal to raise a railway loan. Immoral in itself, it was also a reflection on the patriotism of Parliament, and a presumptuous attempt to dictate to the Government. We don't want to dictate, and we don't wart a loan. All we want is justice — and the railway. Indeed we don't insist on justice. We are ready to compromise our claim. Give us the railway and we will magnanimously forgive and foiget all the wrongs and robberies of the wretched past. The ways and means are a detail that we leave to the Government. Be it a trifle out of the consolidated revenue, coupled with some slight temporary accommodation from the trust funds, or be it what else it may (except, of course, a loau), we leave everything to Mr Ballance. But the railway we want and the railway we mean to have. As Mr J. J. Ramsay says in Tuesday's Times, " Otago has awakened from her slumber and on the railway must go." We constituents h\ve done our part. In public meetings assembled we have faithfully expounded the richness of the land and the righteousness of the work, as our many resolutions do abundantly testify. And we now call on our representatives to do theirs. Will they do it 7 The outlook is not promising. Why is it, I wonder, that wherever two or three Otago members are gathered together there you have the elements of an Or,ago free fight. A free fight preceded Saturday's interview with the Ministers, and a free fight very nearly occurred at the interview it&elf. No two members were of one mind, and as a consequence Mr Ballance could afford to be sarcastic and Mr Seddon sardonic. If the Otago Central is to be pushed on it is clear that as a first step, our members must mend their ways— and that right quickly.

There is an item of religious intelligence in this week's Tablet, which, as it presents itself to me, seems to have an important bearing on the rabbit question. The Trappist Fathers at Oka, near Montreal, have been afilieted by a plague of field mice :—: —

Last year fcheir grounds were invaded by legions of the field mouse which destroyed their young orchard. They this year had the happy thought to remove this plague, to employ the prayers of the Ritual against these destroying animals. Last autumn, one of the monks, in his surplice and stole, escorted by two acolytes, went around the vast enclosure, in which are the orchard and garden, reciting liturgical prayers and sprinkling the previously infected places with holy water. This is what happened : Not a tree, not a plant of any use was attacked by these animals in the limits circumscribed by the ceremony. Still large holes and enormous nests were found in all the other parts of the enclosure. It seemed as if the animals had received order to find their food elsewhere, and they did not go far for it. All around the blessed circle they destroyed young maples and brush. It is curious that the editor of the Tablet, whilst reporting the3e remarkable fact?, seems totally unconscious of their bearing on our own affairs, He fails to see and to say, as he ought, that here is a cure for the rabbit plague. If he thinks that the remedy as above described though efficacious against field mice would be useless against tho rabbit, will he kindly explain his reasons for that opinion ? Speaking for myself — though of course I am only a heretic— l should expect that the Trappist specific would be just as good in the one case as in the other, equally potent against a plague of mice, or a plague of rats, or a plague of rabbits, against the American blight, the codlin moth, and tho Californian thistle. And if not, why not 1 It is painful to suspect the editor of the Tablet of a want of faith, yet under thar suspicion he must inevitable lie until he explains.

Aprojtos of the Tablet and its peculiarities, let me take this opportunity of complimenting the editor on his vocabulary of personal abuse. Some of the ancient Fathers, it may be remembered, had a rich gift of the same kind. Jerome, according to a recent magazine writer, is a good example. It was Jerome's habit in his controversies with other venerable Fathers of the Church to style one " the snorer," another " the miserable grunter," " the hydra of many heads," and " the scorpion." Possibly the other venerable Fathers retorted in kind. This particular ecclesiastical tradition ia faithfully maintained by the Tablet. " Civis " and his "jibes," as is natural, usually come in for a fair share of the Tablet's attention, but in the last number there is merely a reference to these "jibes" as proceeding from " a coarse and unmanly mind." This is trivial, and I almost feel myself neglected. But the editor aiakes up for shortcomings in the matter of "Civis" by the fury with which he falls upon another Witness wiiter who last wetk contributed a criiique on the Masin concert?. Dissenting irom the opinions of this writer, "the editor of the Tablet stjles him "a jackas?," and is so enamoured of the term that he repeats it in every other line — " The jackass says this," "the jackass thinks that," "the jackass tells a whopper," &c, &o. The first sentences of his article are worth quoting as a specimen of Tablet English : —

Dear, dear, dear ! how wonderful Mother Nature is in her variations. But could that there bird over in the Australian bush be the missing link ? The jackass at home is a beast ; in Australia he is a bird ; in New Zealand — that is, at least, in Duuedin — he is a man, or a writer — or, in fact, a musical critic — and he writes in the Otago Witness under the name — the pseudonym,- we suppose — of " CollinMezin," I kn6w nothing ot "Oollin-Mezio," but I should expect him to feel delighted at bekig thought a jackass by a writer who can perpetrate such a collocation of words as " that there bird over in the Australian bush."

Of the many penitential exercises I am forced to perform not the least painful is

that of reading Hansard from cover to oover. Special correspondents who 6it at their ease in the reporters' gallery get the unrevised version fresh every day with full dramatic acce&soriee, and find in it matter of entertainment as well they may. But the piiuted numbers that come to us per post, with all the life and freshness carefully revised ont of them are a weariness to the flesh. Good speaking of course there is. Mr W. P. Reeves is often brilliant, sometimes audacious, and never dull. Mr George Hutchison is ke^n and polished as a rapier, and every thru&fc tells. The Mackenzie clan are all good, each aftei his kind, and in particular Thomas of the Clutha is developing a lightness of toush and a readiness of retort that astonish his friends and dismay his foes. Then theie's Mr Fish. JVJr Fish would "be less unreadable if there were less of him to read. This is not a common-place— it is a compliment. He speaks with amazing vigour as I can myself testify. And ie is asserted by those who read him religiously and regularly that his speeches contain an amazing quantity of common sense — amazing, I presume, when their length and frequency are considered. Other able speakers there are, but take them for all in all they do not redeem Hansard from the reproach of being desperately dull. And yet, no: not quite desperately dull. The Hashes of Reeves may fail, tbo epigrams of Scobie Mackenzie fall flit, and the edge of George Hutchison's satire become rusted. Bat as long as Parliament poiaesses the sententious wisdom of an Ironsand Smith, the incisive logic of ■<<. bovine Buckland, and the classic ele£<inoe and lofty philanthropy of a Sydenham Taylor, so long will the reading of Hansard i o not altogether a labour in vain. And that's why I continue to read it

Mr Smith, I giieve to say, has not yet distinguished himself this session. But all in due time; and his genius is bo strongly marked that all the revising in the world can't rub it out. Whatever remains is pure Smith, and you can always tu(n him up in Hansard with the assurance, of an intellectual treat. The member for Manakau is somewhat unceitiin in his moods, but when at his best he is unapproachable, and the fury of his oratorical rushes has well earned him the title of Manakau Buckland — SDiueiirnes spt.'lt Man-or-Kau, and with a note of interrogation after the Kau. The other week h« inhis.it d on' being called a calf, but the House lxugheil consumedly at such a palpable aff.eota.Uon or" modest.y, and aftcra short but animated controversy he admitted he was fully £rown. As for Mr Taylor, he reads well, but sl.ill the reporters don't seem able to do him justice. We hear of his flashes of merriment that, are went to set the Houte in a roar, but they don't sparkle in Hansard as they ought — profa ibiy because they are too sudden and vivid to be caught in shorthand. They want a photograph. I observe that sincu ceasiiig to be member for Sydenham his philantlnopy has constituted him member for the Poor and Needy. Be they where tuay may (bnb particularly in OhrislchnrdO they have a faithful friend in him, and he never loses an opportunity of telling them so — which is very noble and gonerous of him. The rich and (he haughty, the squatters and the companies have their friends, but the P. and N. have one, and one only, and that's " the person lately known as Sydenham Taylor," as he put it in the House the other day. His zeal knows no measure or bounds. Thus, in the debate about Coloured Labour, Mr Buckland declared that in Tonga the people simply wouldn't work.

If there is any work to be done, they lio dowu and send other people to do it if possible.

Mr Taylor (severely) : Do you blame them for that ? Mr Buckland : Ido not blamo them. They are all poor and needy. Tho hon. gentleman • would find a large field for his operations if ho were to go among the poor and needy of Tonga. Mr Taylor (impressively) : I will visit that locality during next recess. And of course he will.

According to a Wellington correspondent of one of the papers the remark is to bo credited to one of the membars for Dunedin that the real causes of the encroachment of the sea at St Clair are the Forbury racecourse and Tahuna Park. lam reluctantly compelled to suspect that the member in question has been misunderstood, — reluctantly, because a new theory on the subject is very much wanted, and also because this particular theory opens up so inviting a field to the imagination. How is it conceivable that the existence of the racecourse on one side of the sandhills can have incited the sea to misbehaviour on the other 7 That's where the opportunity for the imagination comes in. It is not at first easy to see any connection between the two things. But what connection has Tenterden Steeple with the Goodwin Sands ? None at all— visibly, yet a connection there is. A certain Bishop of Rochesterappliedtotbebuildingof Tenterden Steeple revenues that properly belonged to Sandwich haven, and which, it applied to their rignt usp, would have prevented the formation of the Goodwin Sands. In the light of this fact I J ee uo reason to despair of fastening the responti^ili f y of Uv destruction at St. Clair on the Forbury Ricecoursf. Tue sea, I should suggest, is making a moral protest against the iniquities of the turf and the inhumanity of Plumpton coursing. It i 3 bent on demolishing the grand stand and totalisator boxes. The St. Clair wall stood in its way, and so the St. C.'air wall had lo go. This theory is as good ao another, aud it has the great merit of saddling the racecourse people with all damages, cos 1 ; of repairs, and protection for tho future. Ou any other theory there will have to be a rate.

I observe that Mr Wilson's attempt to personally conduct a Dai.ediu audici.co through the nine circles of Djnte'a Htll n the space of one short evening did r;ot succeed. The thing con'.dn't be (\hno in jhe time. At 10 o'clock the l^ctuii'r was oi.i> half-way down t!.e Infertio, ;uxi nli.hou.; i his adventurous companion. 1 -, uho i> i already supped full of horrors, were il*\itt*i,t ing for more, he wisely re&erved the lowi r deeps, with all the worst sinut-r* find t!so most grisly punishments, for anothei l'lduiv. The Nineteenth Century for March contains a ghastly article desciiptive of the Moslem

Hell. It might be worth Mr Wilson's while, if : time permits, to compare the ideas of Dante with those of Mahomet. As a specimen of the latter I venture to give one short extract. The Prophet is relating to Fatimab, his wife, with an eye to her personal edification, what he had seen in the nether regions :

I saw a woman hanging by the hair of her head, and her brains bubbled. I saw a woman hanging by her tongue, and the boiling water of hell was being poured down her gullet. . . From another woman the flesh was being cut off both before and behind with fiery scissors ; another ate with burning hands her own bowels.

. . . as to another, fire issued from her mouth, what time angels beat her head and body with battle-axes red hot. After listening to all this and more, Fatimah asks what crimes those unfortunate women had been gailty of. "His Majesty the Sanctified replied, ' O moat revered daughter, the woman hanging by her hair did not conceal it from the sight of men ; the woman hanging by her tongue caused torment therewith to her husband ' "—and so on, in detail, through a list of conjugal offences. " Woe be it," concludes the Prophet, "to the woman who angers her husband, and sweet is the state of her who contents him ! " After this- one reads with satisfaction that Dante, in his Inferno, puts Mahomet in one of the worst placei — in Malebolge, down in the eighth circle. All women,' married or unmarried, will agree that the uxorious Prophet well deserves CIVIS.

to be there.