Current Topics

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XI, Issue 41, 8 February 1884, Page 1

Current Topics

AT HOME AND ABROAD.

We occasionally come across passages in the newsdeploeable papers, and even in those that rank highest and JOURNALISM, are most influential, that almost induce us to believe all argument and all enlightenment to be useless, and that men, in spite of the most evident proofs to the contrary, will continue to be guided by their prejudices, and will sustain the cause it is of interest to them to sustain let what will happen ; — that, in short, there is no such thing as the love of justice and fair play, and that every evil will continue to be excused or explained away until it appears to be the greatest good and blessing. Such an utterance, for example, we find in a recent issue of the London Times, where there occurs a review entitled " Ealeigh and Cromwell in Ireland." But can it be conceived that any writer qualified to contribute to the columns of the Times is honest or sincere when, for example, he pens such a passage as the following? "If Ireland was too long governed by Eevere measures, it has, at least, had a considerable spell of a moie humane and remedial policy under Mr. Gladstone ; yet a large number of the populition remain rebellious and discontented. It would seem as though they must always remain so. When all forms of statesmanship have been tried without avail, it is but reasonable to suppose that there must be something radically wrong with ihe people themselves." Can we believe that a competent writer is really in earnest, we ask, when he writes in such a strain 1 It is acknowledged that from Ealeigh to Mr. Gladstone there was naisgovemment — that then there was a partial amendment made, in consequence of which we find it expected, that all discontent among the people should have been put an end to. Surely the writer who is guilty of such reasoning not only insults and libels the liish people, but mocks his own readers. This, however, is not the oaly passage in the article to which we allude that might lead us to despair of ever seeing the right prevail. It is, again, admitted that certain " black charges " that have been brought against Ealeigh cannot be disproved. Such, for instance, as that he favoured assassination. The defence is, nevertheless, that it was right for him to favour assassination — that all things, in short, were lawful to him by which to accomplish his ends. — " In dealing with this matter, it must be remembered that these were grave times. Ealeigh and others argued that a strong policy was necessary, jiibt *s it is sometimes necessary to amputate a limb to save life." — Call murder " surgery," in fact, as it has been already called, and all is well. Let it be advanced, on the other hand, that some poor illadvised wretch, for his part also, argues that strong measures are necessary to save life — that the murder of some oppressor of the poor may shield from destruction half the people of a country's side, and is his deed called surgery ? Search the columns of the Times and see whether it is so — then, indeed, assassination is seen in its true light by the writers in our great contemporary, and none are so fierce and unsparing as they in its denunciation. Not the assassin only, but all his race, is pronounced accursed by them. But the great English hero's character is sacred, and perish all right, all justice, all truth, rather that that it should be in any degree besmirched. What hope is there in dealing with men like this ? and hieh places are far too fully possessed by such men. There is do infamy that stains the page c£ history which may not be so defended, and alas, there is no injustice, no oppression, that cannot, in the present, be so justified. — " Looking back upon the 16th century, we cannot at once transplant 19th century principles into its public acts and policy," says the writer again, but unfortunately it is not impossible to transplant 16lh centuiy principles into the acts and policy of the 19th. — And we have seen of late many things in Ireland that might more consistently have occurred under the Government that ruled there in the 16th century. The writer afterwards goes on to speak of Cromwell : — " Mr. Murphy, (a Jesuit, and author of a work on Cromwell in Ireland,) brings a terrible indictment against the Protector," he says, " though in their broad and general character the chargas wore, of course, known before. We do not know whether

Mr. Murphy expected Cromwell to do the work he had to do in Ireland by the application of rose-water ; but the grim soldier held a different view." And so the matter is, explained. Tbs " grim soldier" had fell designs to accomplish, and since rose water was not the instrument fitted to accomplish ihetn with, — the sword and fire were used in its place. — Supply a man, therefore, with a mottre sufficient in his own eyes, and there is no fiendish action that he may not reasonably perform. But, if this is indeed the true doctrine of English public writers, English newspapers act consistently in their constant denunciation of the Irish cause. It is a sufficient motive to the party of oppression that it is profitable to rule Ireland in a manner which mrst needs prolong- the misery b^tier population, and the last word has been said in the matter. It only remains to make the course more easy for those who are to carry out the necessary measures by a constant torrent of invective, accusation, falsehood, and abuse. — Such is the lesson we learn from a perusal of so high and influential an organ as the Times, and it is one as discouraging to the friends of Ireland as it should be full of shame to those of Eng land.

"We have it on high authority that the " tender FALSE fbiends. mercies of the wicked are cruel," and in like manner the good intentions of certain of our friends towards us are certainly leavened by intentions that are less amiable! It is proposed, in fact, by some of the advocates of justice to Ireland, that the extension of the franchise may be granted to that country in order to place an effectual barrier in the path of her progress towards freedom. Enlarge the body of voters, they say, and you will divide the popular party. Instead of a compict group of nationalists following the lead of one powerful chief, you will have a number of contending parties, more or less violently hostile among themselves. But do we not find here the time-honoured policy of England — the motto divide et impera, which she has known so well how to act upon in building up and maintaining her Empire ? Do we not see once more the old engine by which she trampled the Irish people down into the dust of the earth, holding them by fratricidal bonds ? Mr. Chamberlain, nevertheless, speaking at Bristol the other day, stated the argument in favour of granting the extension to Ire* land very forcibly, making a passing allusion, moreover, to the plea we have spoken of.— He is reported by the Times as follows : Then there is another question about which I should have thought that there could hardly have been any doubt if I had not observed that Sir. Eicbard Cross, speaking at Workington the other night, seemed to think that two answers were possible. He said, ' What are you going to do about Ireland. Are you going to extend to Ireland the benefits which you propose to confer upon Scotland and upon England V (Cries of « Yes') Why not ? (« Hear, hear ' and cheers.) I should have thought that he might have found the answer in the pages of ' Hansard.' If he will look at that work he will find that whenever this question has been before Parliament lately, in 1879 and in 1882, the whole of the Liberal Government, and I think with one exception the whole of the Liberal party, supported resolutions in favour of an identical suffrage for the three kingdoms. (' Hear, hear, 1 and cheers.) Why should you make a distinction ? (Hear, hear.) We are told that if the franchise were extended in Ireland the number of Mr. Parnell's Parliamentary supporters would be increased. I believe everybody admits, that in the next general election, whatever happens, and even with the present franchise, Mr. Parncll will have 60 members who acknowledge his leadership. It is said that if you extend the franchise this number will be increased to SO. Well, 20 seats is, no doubt, a matter of some importance and might turn out a Government ; but, as a question of Parliamentary discipline and management, I must say I thiiik it matters vtry little whether there are 60 resolute men prepared to take a hostile attitude iv face of the English Parliament, or whether there are 80. lam also not altogether prepared to accept the truth of the prediction which is made — if you extend the fianchise in Ireland you will bring a new class into the electorate. It may be. Ido not know, but it may be that there will arise a division in the popular party, and that so far from strengthening you might even weaken Mr. Parnell's hands. All these specula-

tions, gentlemen, are altogether beside the question. (Cheers.) The real question for Liberals to consider is this, what is the object, in Heaven's [name, of a representative system ? Surely it is to reflect faithfully the opinions of the people represented. (Loud cheers.) It cannot be by fraudulent devices to secure a sham representation which has no authority, no popular weight whatever. This is a matter upon which Liberals must have the courage of their convictions. There are two courses open to you. You may try. if you like, a task which I think to be impossible. You may attempt to govern Ireland in the 19th century despotically, as you govern India, without a semblance of representation. But if you admit that cannot be, if you grant the necessity of constitutional rule, then, I say, let that constitutional rule be a reality, and let us take its consequences. (Cheers.) The policy of the Liberal party has been to draw closer the bonds of Union between that country and England and Scotland by steady persistance through good repute and evil repute, in just administration and equal laws (cheers) ; and would you have us frustrate this object, and at a time when the Government is engaged on the most important legislation that can occupy its attention, by creating another invidious distinction, an odious inequality, with the expressed intention of suppressing the expression of the popular feeling in Ireland? (Cheers.) lOur danger in that country arises, I am sorry to say, from the hostility of a large portion of the population to Imperial rule. Do yoa think that you can lessen that danger by driving it beneath the surface 1 Better far that we should bear the evil and annoyance of a band of irreconcil. ables engaged with us in Parliamentary conflict than that we should play into the hands of the enemies of the British connexion by giving them just ground and true reason for the disaffection which they profess. (Cheers.) The position which the Tories take up with regard to the extension of the franchise in Ireland, their willingness to continue, and even to extend, the inequalities which exist, is intelligible enough. They try to manipulate our representative system so that it may give them the results which shall be satisfactory to them ; and so you find that such devices as franchises of property qualifications and of minority voting, are all invoked in aid of a restricted suffrage and of an unequal distribution, in order that the minority may continue to rule, while the majority may bn mocked with the semblance of power. (Cheers.)" How far Mr. Chamberlain and those who think with him may be influenced by tte consideration that the support of the Irish party will be necessary in order that they may carry their measure, we shall not stop to inquire. Our belief, however, is that the hope of those people, who would confer a ruinous gift upon the Irish people will be disappointed, and that they will find the nation convinced that, until they bave secured their one great object, no divisions are to be thought of. That efforts will be made — and no doubt insidious efforts by well trained hands— to cause divisions thera can be little doubt. But the Irish people have learned their lesson in the best and most impressive of all methods, by bitter, heart-scalJing experience, and they will now know how to detect the tempter and reject his temptations; they will know how to keep together and face the foe with all their force, or, if they fail, and suffer themselves to be divided, they will afford a proof that, indeed, as it has so often been said, they are unfit for freedom, and incapable of self-government. But they will surely be true to themselves at the turning point of their distressful history.

Mr. Pamell's speech at the National banquet, where parnkll's the presentation of £38,000 was made to him in the defiance. Rotunda on Dec. 11th was a very important one. It contained an able review of the past, an explanation of the present situation, and a confident assurance of success in the future, but it was notably free from any tone of boasting, and declared that, as the progrsss which had been made was slow and comparatively little, there still remained a long period of trying efforts to be encountered. He sketched, in passing' the condition in which the National party had found the country, and recalled the fierce manner in which their agitation to place things on a better footing by constitutional means had been opposed— but vainly opposed. The rule of Buckshot Forster he stigmatised as it deserved, and he exposed to the derision of the world Lord Spencer and Mr. Trevelyan, the men found to carry on that rule with leas ability and in a meaner way, although in one as obstinate. Mr, Parnell knew that when he was speaking the ears of the world were open in anxious listening to all his words, and he spoke without disguise, calmly, boldly — with neither exaggeration nor extenuation, and in a manner that in every respect honoured the great man who spoke and the cause oE which he is the leader. The effect, indeed, of his utterance is manifest in the rage'of those opposed to|him, and who have only been able to meet his words by an incoherent torrent of anger, by calumny repeated, by misrepresentation, and abundant falsehood. The Times, for example, betrays how all its hopes were baffled in the very first few sentences of the leader written to mislead its English readers as to the true significance and weight of the matter it pretends to deal with. Tt mocks Mr. Pamell's comparison of the present gathering with those of the Volunteers in '82. " But where," it

asks, " are the Grattans and the Charlemonts to-day ?'. There is not, indeed, a Parliamentary leader of Grafctan's eloquence, but there was present before the writer's troubled mind a leader to fill whose place Grattan would have sacrificed his noble eloquencebeing content to forego the glory of his own immortality in favour of his country 'B freedom. We need not, however, deny one tittle of Grattan's merits to give to Charles Stewart Parnell his dues. Grattan, by no fault of his, and after his magnificent struggle, saw his country enslaved and died and left her bound. Parnell will see her freed, if his years are of even an ordinary length, and will die with the laurels around his brow. But as for Charlemont — give Ireland again armed men such as those whom Oharlemont led, and a leader will not be wanting for them, a leader, moreover, untainted by the bigotry that marred the patriotism of Charlemont. " Not only the official classes and the landed gentry," says the writer again, " but the learned professions, the Universities, the clergy oE all denominations—except a few ' patriot priests ' of inferior ecclesiastical rank — the capitalists, the leaders in industrial and mercantile undertakings, have held aloof, one and all, from a movement which arrogates to itself, nevertheless, the misused name of 'national.' " The official classes were absent, forsooth — the hangers-on of the Castle ; the landed gentry, squires and squireens, and all that order of socalled Irishmen, whose conceit, as Thackarey, in his " Book of Snobs," with satire well-deserved and keen, tells us it is that they are all English. It was not a place for tinsel and grimaces, it was a place for true manly Irishmen of all classes, and they were well represented. But as to the Catholic Clergy— if they kept aloof from a purely political meeting, their rea3ons we doubt not for so doing were good and sufficient ; — their hearts, nevertheless, were with the cause which the meeting was held to advance, and the Irish people know that by many proofs. To bring their absence forward as a mark that the meeting was not national is but a sign and a sure one of the writer's hollowness, his insincerity, and the want he feels of valid arguments.— But the whole article betrays all this. There are merely the foul, old, lying accusations. Once more we are told that outrage was the "unwritten law" of the League — the "unwritten law" because no particle of proof has ever baen produced or caa be produced that the League countenanced outrage— all their spies, all their trap 3, all their police have not been able to trace one crime even remotely to the League. Therefore they lie boldly and cry out crime was its " unwritten law." Can there be anything in all the world more infamous than this? Men have been deservedly ducked in a horse-pond, men have been with full merit tarred and feathered for a less offence. — But we admit they were not men engaged in the defence oE British institutions, and full of the spirit of British justic3. Let us respect the cause and motive, and acknowledge that everything so done is well done, and more than justified by the end in view. In the same way let us receive the accusations brought now aq;ain against Mr. Parnell — that he had countenanced murder, that he had recommended boycotting, that he had knowingly enlisted in the service of the caus?, Sheridan, an Invincible. But all this shows the futile Jvage of the writer, and how deeply home the words o£ Mr. Parnell had struck — how sorely they had touched upon the raw. In such a case the gambols of the great may well be excessive, for the touch is unwonted and stings a thousandfold. And, indeed, there was enough to sting in the calm, convincing* assurance of the detested chief that, do what his enemies would, he would remain a power in the State, and a power gaining strength each day. Whether, for example, he said, the extended franchise were granted to Ireland or not tha Irish party would go up to Parliament after the next election to the number of between 70 and 80 members. And if there was to be more coercion, at least the .Irish people would choose the hands to wield the whip. They should, he said, be those of the Tories, the "national enemies," and not those of the Whigs," whom he called "wolves in sheep's clothing." The English people, in this way, should pay for their .Government's game of coercion in increased taxes and foreign wars. -So much, he said, the Irish members and the Irish people in EDgland could determine. No wonder, indeed, the Times is furious. — The day has come when these Pariahs., these hewers of wood and drawers of water, from their low estate, and despised dwellings in English cities can influence the elections and hold a check upon the great parties that rule the Kingdom. In very deed a nemesis has arisen, and the oppression of the Irish peasant bids fair to be avenged. But all honour to the valiant leader who, still in the breach, assumes the tone of conquest and appoints his paiticular opponents, who, under the guns of the enemy, nominates the gunners and proclaims the victory. Meantime, Mr. Parnell has given a full assurance that the Irish party continues independent, indifferent alike to Whig or Tory, and bent only on its own ends.

To add to the intricacies of the European situation NEW 'XROUBLKS. we now find there are Socialistic troubles at Vienna, and a Bonaparti&t agitation in Paris. 3he population of the French capital, as it would seem, have for some time been , suffering from unusual want, and we had already heard that they

were crying out for relief.— The Republic has evidently failed to fulfil the expectations of a people who, under other forms of government, looked upon it as the hope of their lives, who now, however, have had time to discover that under their tyrants they had better times, and, though enslaved, were happier. There has always, indeed, been ex reme misery in Paris.— M. d"Haussonville has, within the last few years, devoted his time to exploring the quarters where the mistrable dwell, and has published the results of his experiences. The accounts given by him are very distressing, although they fall far short of the hideous revelations that have still more recently been made concerning London. The people, nevertheless, among whom the misery in Paris prevails are of a more dangerous and inflammable nature ; among their traditions are those of revolution, and it is the nseanß to whioh they naturally look for deliverance in their troubles — It may, nevertheless, be reasonably doubled as to whether Prince Napoleon will appear to them one likely to lead them to better things than those they now possess. His reputation has har dly ever been that of a man capable of winning to himself the confidence or affection of the masses— an unscrupulous self-seeking and disregard of all interests except his own have been the characteristics with which he has been generally accredited, and, in all probability, the populace will now fully understaud the true meaning of the appeal he makes in their favour. Nevertheless, the measure of their discontent may be filled up, and any incentive may lead to its overflow, so that it is quite possible some popular outbreak may be the consequence. We should be surprised to find, however, that the end sought by any such movement was anything other than the overthrow of the present Government in favour of the red republic. At any rate there is a prospect of fresh internal troubles, and of distractions at home that will suffice, and more than suffice to prevent the attention from being paid to the foreign affairs of the nation which they seem to demand. Paris, as we have said, has always included among its population a vast number of sufferers from extreme poverty, and owing to the persecution and expulsion during recent years of the religious Ordersl we may reasonably conclude that the number in question has been added to. It is certain that a restraining power has been crippled among them, and that the element of patience and submissi on M. d'Haussonville found even in the haunts of the most poverty-stricken and wretched, has been lessened by the weakening of the religious influences. It ie, however, an ill wind that blows nobody good and if we are destined to see France once more torn by intestine tumults, at least we may hope that the defences which we are told the Imperial Government is about to strengthen at home and abroad, at an expense of two millions of money, may not be put so soon to the proof as might otherwise be the case, for, it seems evident, that, in making or strengthening their defences, the Government must have France principally, or perhaps even wholly, in view. Extra precautions against the success of El Mahdi can hardly as yet be thought necessary, and with all other nations there is, to all appearances, las ting peace. With France alone, bo far as the uninitiated can discern, does there seem the possibility of nearly approaching difficulties. Socialism at Vienna, as elsewhere, is indeed a serious matter and a dangerous one, but it is still remote.

Eminent men in all quarters of the world, it would elections, seem, are meeting with the due recognition of their greatness. At home the Poet Laureate has been raised to the peerage by ithe title of Baron Tennyson D'Eyncourt; with ourselves Mr. Whitaker, the late premier has won his spurs, and been made a knight with th c usual title. The right of Alfred Tennyson to any honour that could be conferred upon him few men of undei standing will be disposed to question. His poetry has added a rich treasure to the literature of the language, and his place among nature's noblemen has long been won. The question is, then, not as to the deserts of the new peer, but rather as to the advantage to him that a peerage may bring. What the advantage may possibly be to the man we know not. There are, it would appear, privileges connected with a title that extend afar, and are recognised in remote places Somewhere or another, for example, we read the other day thai among the qualifications desirable for certain gentlemen attached to the British embassies abroad was to be reckoned an accurate knowledge as to whether the daughter of a baronet or the granddaughter of a peer should have the precedence in beiDg taken down to dinner And doubtless, on occasion there might be much in the distinction. Who does not remember the negotiations that took place, according to Carlyle, between the sister of Frederick 111. and the Empress of Charles VI. as to steps of stairs, and the chair the princess was to sit on during an interview with her Majesty? The mortification therefore of the baronet's daughter, or the peer's granddaughter, in finding herself misplaced might perchance be excessive. Does not the infinitely little often reckon as an important factor in the lives of men T— We shall not venture to hint that it does so still more frequently in those of women. We cannot therefore, find reasonable grounds for denial that the elevation of Tennyson to the peerage may be otsome advantage immediate or more or less remote to the man . it may even influence him in connection with those who are to come

after him a generation or two hence. For those of us, however, who know the poet only as a poet, he had already been sufficiently a lord, — his works upon our book-shelves bore each his patent of nobility in the solemnity, the sonorousness, the grandeur of its rhythmic flow, in the tender pathos, the rich imagination, the lofty spirit, the exquisite description with which it abounded. The coronet that genius holds from nature was stamped on every volume, and no touch even of a royal hand could add anything to the honour of the name upon the title page. But is it as poet or man that Tennyson has been raised to the peerage, and has his social standing, and his estimation in the eyes of royalty had more to do with the matter than his poetry ? If his poetry alone has deserved this honour, there are poets at least who sleep in lowlier graves than those that are their dve — whose descendants, if they have any, occupy a more humble condition in society than they have a right to by that of their ancestor's merits. Sbakspeare was not t made a lord, nor was Milton, nor yet Wordsworth, nor Burns, and still in the temple of fame the statue of the least of them deserves a higher place than Tennyson's. But if it be the poet alone that is honoured let us, nevertheless, hail the better temper of the times, and rejoice that since a monarchy implies a peerage, and a peerage needs continual renewal — the world of intellect is called upon to supply the want.—As for the noble knight Whifcaker, it is vain to speculate about what may be the advantage of his elevation. Here, perhaps, there is something that really savours of the distinction between baronets' daughters and peers' grand-daughters, and the infinitely little may plainly be discovered. What the advantage to a reputable colonial statesman may be in knighthood it is difficult to determine — a man of common sense should be above the consideration of some trifling imaginary rise over the position of some other Tom, Dick, or Harry. Still harder is it to determine of»what advantage to the order of knighthood may be the acquisition of a man in whose political career, for which he is presumably rewarded there is nothing in any degree more creditable than in that of any other colonial politician, and whose name has been associated with land jobbing that was anything rather than creditable— whose latest official position, moreover, was at the head of a Ministry under whose rule the Colony has reached the verge of ruin. Honours so bestowed are either honours held in contempt by the giver, or else they are merely pearls cast before swine — but in either case Mr. Whitaker is deservine of the situation.