THE BISHOP AND THE LEAGUE.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 3321, 23 November 1883, Page 2

THE BISHOP AND THE LEAGUE.

The Auckland correspondent of the “ Otago Daily Times,” sends the following :—Bishop Luck, in a letter to the “ Herald,” approves of the proposal of Mr D. O’Sullivan, of Christchurch, (writing in the“ Tablet,”) urging that Catholics should use the National League organisation for the purpose of securing the registration of all Catholics in New Zealand qualified to vote. The Bishop denominates the Land League as a “ legitimate organisation.” The “ Herald” thus comments on theletter : —“ But we venture to think tmt the Bishop is but a recent convert to this favourable view of the Irish agitation ; that he has not always expressed himself thus favourably of the Irish agitation; that he sought to discourage the reception of the Messrs Redmond by the Catholics of Auckland ; that he declined to identify himself with Mr Redmond when that gentleman lectured in Auckland ; that he refused to appear on the platform with him, and generally gave it to be understood that he discountenanced the mission of these agitators to the Colony. If we are correct in these views, we were warranted in wondering what would Bishop Luck say to this—to him objectionable— organisation being enrolled among the agencies of the Church ; but as Bishop Luck has now shaken hands with this organisation, and said, “Bravo! well done,” to it, our wonder is no less as to how this has come to pass, or whether the change has been wrought in the organisation or in the Bishop. Is it that the Irish agitation has become separated in the Bishop’s mind from the outrage and bloodshed with which he had formerly associated it, or is it that all red-handed it is taken to his heart because he has suddenly seen that it may be of service to the Church? We have far too high an opinion of Bishop Luck to think thus. We have no doubt that there will be those who, when they hear Bishop Luck saying ‘Bravo!’ to the organisation of the Irish League, will maliciously say that he has shaken hands with what he regards as veiled rebellion, and what be formerly denounced by pastoral ; and that he does this only because he has seen how ho may use it for promoting the interests of his Church. But we believe Bishop Luck is too much of a loyal English gentlemen to do this. All that we desire in his own interest, as well as for the public satisfaction, is to learn what is the change that has come over Irish agitation since the day when the Bishop and nearly all the leading Catholics of Auckland were ashamed to sit on the platform with Mr Redmond, It is needless for us to say that the organisation of the Irish National League ostcatatiously puts forth in its programme that it is a union of Protestants and Catholics for national purposes, Protestants are enrolled in its organisation in New Zealand, and have contributed to its funds, and Protestants have presided at its organising lectures, while in many cases leading Catholics were ashamed to appear connected with it. And Bishop Luck conveys his belief that this organisation—and, of course, necessarily its funds—would be legitimately employed in organising and enrolling a block Catholic vote for purely Catholic purposes. Surely the Bishop does not mean to convey these as the principles of moral action which ho commends. Surely he would not allow such an illustration of‘doing evil that good may come ’ to be held up by the enemy to the scandal of the Church. We feel confident that Bishop Luck has been carried away by his enthusiasm as a recent convert to the Irish cause, and that he has not fully weighed his words,”