THE COMING CONTEST.

New Zealand Tablet, Volume VII, Issue 332, 29 August 1879, Page 14

THE COMING CONTEST.

It appears that all men are liberals now-a-days. Not one candidate throughout New Zealand has dared to declare himgelf a conservative. The word liberal is the present fashion. But what does it mean ? This is the important question : and what is the answer ? At this moment it is a mere cry only fit to amuse children. Mr. Olives, one ot the candidates for Dunedin, says he is really almost ashamed to use the term. But he need not be so, he is as much entitled to call himself a liberal as any other candidate.

And what are some of the grounds on which Mr. Oliver for example, and in common with him, a great many other candidates call themselves liberal. This liberal Dunedin candidate says, he calls himself a liberal because he is of opinion there should be liberty of conscience as well as liberty of commerce, This is really rich ! Liberty of conscience, what i* liberty of conscience. ? ft is rather unfortunate Mr.

Oliver did not favour the public with a definition ot liberty of conscience.

But we shall supply this omission, deriving our definition of his meaning from nis words and acts. Liberty of conscience in this gentleman's mind, means the liberty of himself and fellows to put their hands in the pockets of Catholics and then spend their money in teaching their children vile falsehoods about their religion and its ministers : it means also the liberty to coerce Catholic children to frequent godless schools, and to compel Catholics to pay for the teaching of notorious falsehoods to other people's children; Liberalism means liberty to demoralise the rising generation, and to vilify plunder and trample on all who wish to preserve Christianity and rear up a religious and moral people. Mr. Dick, another candidate for Dunedin, is also a Liberal. He says so. But his liberality is more conspicuous for a reckless manifestation of a peculiar knowledge of history than anything else. He advocates the compulsory reading of the Bible in schools, because, he says, it was the reading of the Bible which, for two hundred years, since the time of that distinguished hypocrite, Oliver Cromwell, has made England the great advocate of civil and religious liberty at home and abroad. But what about the butcheries of Cromwell in the name of God ? What about the penal laws passed in the reigns of William and Mary, of Anns and the first Georges ?

The Advocate of civil and religious liberty ! Who violated the treaty of Limerick ? — who ascended the pulpit in Christchurch, Dublin, and preached that faith should not be kept with Catholics? — who expelled all Catholics from Parliament, robbed them of the franchise, closed the Corporations against them, banished and sometimes hanged Catholic priests for saying mass ? — who encouraged children to rise against their parents by enabling them, as the reward of apostasy, to disinherit their parents ? The Bible Christians of the last two centuries in Great Britain and Ireland. And Mr. Dick either knew not or forgets all this, and yet aims at representing such a constituency as Dunedin. And he shows his love of liberty by joining with Mr. Olivke in compelling Catholics to pay for teaching calumnies on their religion, its ministers, and on real history. Mr. D. Stewart is the last of the triumvirate of worthies whom The Daily Times recommends to the Dunedin electors. He is not so pronounced in his advocacy of the compulsory reading of the Bible in public schools as Mr. Dick ; but he agrees with both Mr. Dick and Mr. Oliver in compelling Catholics to pay for a system of education reprobated by their conscience, and for teaching at their expense shocking calumnies concerning their religion.