New Zealand Tablet. Fiat Justitia. FRIDAY, OCTOBER 1, 1875. ANOTHER CALUMNY.

New Zealand Tablet, Volume III, Issue 126, 1 October 1875, Page 10

New Zealand Tablet. Fiat Justitia. FRIDAY, OCTOBER 1, 1875. ANOTHER CALUMNY.

Our readers are familiar with the case of Mrs. Bates' children. Thin case was first brought before the public by the Rev. Mr. Wollaston, Melbourne. Ab we learn from a letter published in the ' Argus ' of the 11th ult., the Rev. gentleman put it shortly thus: These children, being the offspring of" Protestant parents, were deserted by the father, and on the death of the mother were confided by her to the care of her friend, Mrs. Smeaton ; that without the slightest warranty, except " the iniquitous doctrine " of the Church of Koine, " that the end justifies the means," they were forcibly seized and removed from her custody by a Catholic priest, and hurried away no one knew where, to be brought up against their wills; and the desire of their friends and parents, in the " horrible doctrines " of intolerant papists." ' Iv consequence of this letter, the Melbourne correspondents of the Dunedin Daylies sent over sensational accounts of this case for the information and delectation of the New Zealand pnblic, and they did not fail to subjoin their own comments. We have already called attention to the revolting character of these comments, and of the unproven statements of the writers. By the last mail, we received a pamphlet containing a full account of the proceedings in the Supreme Court of Victoria, when the Bates' children were brought into Court in obedience to a warrant of habeas corpus. Erom these proceedings we learn that all the statements made by the Eev. Mr. Wollastoit, are untrue. It was proved on oath that the children Bates are illegitimate, that their mother was always a Catholic, that she died a Catholic, having been attended by a Catholic clergyman ; that she had confided her children to a Catholic clergy- • man and a Catholic lady in order that they should be brought up in the Catholic religion, that no force was used in taking them from Mrs. Smeatost. It was further proved that Mrs. SmeatojST is a most disreputable person. One affidavit states that " her conduct and the' conduct of those vrho visited her was disgraceful, she and they were continually drinking to intoxication, and making use of most disgusting language." Another affidavit contains the following :—": — " That the said Mary Anne Smeatost is a very great drunkard, and is a very loose and dissolute character; is not a married woman, and is now living with a.marrieel man who is a very great drunkard, a:id the language used by him, the said Maet Ann Smeaton; and the persons visiting her in the presence of the said children, is most disgusting and obscene; and is not fit language to be heard by any one, especially children. That whilst the said children of the said Ellen Bates were so residing withthe said Mart Ann Smeaton, I have witnessed most distressing acts of cruelty towards them by the said Marx Anne Smeaton, and they have several times come- to my house in a state of starvation, rags and dirt ; and I have several times given them food out of pity, and that they were kept by the said Mart Anne Smeaton running to hotels for liquor all day long." This Mart Anne Smeaton was the woman who was brought into the police court to claim possession, of these poor children, and to insist on having them withdrawn from the custody of the Catholic priest and Catholic lady to whose care their Catholic mother in her (lying moments had confided them ! But this is not all. The managers of the Wollaston business having failed as regards Mrs. Smeaton, found out the putative father of the children, and brought him into the Supreme Court to claim them. The Court decided that in law illegitimate children have no father. This disposed of his claim. But let us see what is the character of the man to whom it was sought to hand over these children. One affidavit states that James Bates, the putative father " was then " fifteen years ago, and always was, up to about seven months ago, when he loft Brighton aforesaid, a very great drunkard, he having to my own knowledge, had several attacks of delirium tremens from excessive drinking, and that he was never married to the said Ellen Bates, and since his release I have seen him in company with Mart Anne Smeaton, at her house, both at the same time being in a state of drunkenness.

Another affidavit has the following : — I knew the said James Bates was. very cruel to the mother and to the children, that he is an inveterate drunkard, that I believe from my knowledge of the said J. Bates and his perpetual drunken habits, that he is a moßt unfit and improper person to have custody of the said children." But the particular calumny, to which we wish to draw particular attention to-day is the words — "iniquituous doctrine that the end justifies the means." The Rev. Mr. "Wollaston says this is the doctrine of the Church of Borne. A more untrue and unfounded statement could not be made. The doctrine of the Church of Borne is the ►rery opposite of this, and there is no truth she insists on 'more strongly than the following, viz., that it is not lawful to do the least evil to effect even the greatest good, that what is wrong should not be done on any account whatsoever, and that it would not be lawful — for example, to tell a jocose lie, which harms no one, to secure even the greatest temporal and eternal welfare of mankind. •This is the Catholic doctrine taught by all our doctors and theologianß without exception. And yet there are men, it ap- | pears, who prefix reverend to their names, and who ought j to have at least a little learning and a little decency, who j do not hesitate to state the atrocious and easily-refuted \ calumny that the Catholic Church teaches the doctrine that the " end justifies the means." Now, we do not charge Protestants with teaching this doctrine which some, at least, among them falsely attribute to Catholics ; but it is certain that high Protestant au- \ thorities have taught something very like it. For example i — Jeremy Taylor writes thus : — It is lawful to tell a lie to our neighbour by consent, provided the end be innocent and pious." "To tell a lie for charity, to save a man's life," this great Protestant authority continues, " hath not only been done in all times, but commanded by great, vrise, and good men." ..." Who would not save his father's life, or the life of his. king, or of a good bishop and guide of souls, at the charge of a harmless lie, from the rage of persecution and tyrants." — (Doctor Dubitantium, book 3, c7utp. 2.) Paley, another great Protestant authority, teaches thus : — " Many people indulge, in serious discourse, a habit of fiction and exaggeration in the accounts they give of themselves, of their acquaintances, or of the extraordinary things which they have seen and heard; and, so long as the facts they relate are indifferent, and their narratives, though false, are inoffensive, it may seem a superstitious regard for truth to censure them merely for truth's sake." (Moral and Political fhilosophy, book 3, p. 1, c&. 15.) Geotitjs, another high Protestant authority, allows a lie to- be told in three cases. — (See book " 111 Mendacio, 14 (3), 15 (4), 16 (5)." But the Catholic Church abhors Such morality, and teaches that a lie is an essential evil, a malum in se, and cannot consequently be permitted for any purpose, or end, or under any possible circumstances. We perceive that not one of the Melbourne or Dunedin papers whicli so readily published the calumnious charges against Father Dat/ton and the Church has made the least reparation for their injustice. And this is honest and honorable journalism, is it ?