Current Topics

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XII, Issue 5, 23 May 1884, Page 1

C urrent To pics

AT HOME AND ABROAD.

In another place we reproduce an article in which

AN JEXtJBKBANTLY energetic ECCIiESIASTio and an intensely BBNKVOIiKNT ONE.

oar contemporary the Bruce Herald, comments on certain remarks made the other day in Dunedin at a meiting of subscribers to the Benevolent Institution, and in which article Mr. R. B. Martin gets all the credit that is due to him for a silly utterance. The \enerable Archdeacon Edwards also comes in for a share of notice, but not to the extent by any means that he deserves. There was, moreover, a peculiar beauty about this meeting that our con-

temporary seems wholly to have overlooked, but which it would be a pity to pass by altogether in silence—for we may take tte meeting as an illustration of the union of Christendom as it exists outside the Catholic Church, and as such it should be found very interesting. The Venerable Archdeacon Edwards and the Rev. Dr. Stuart, then, appeared there in the same boat—which, by-the-by, we may, perhaps, consider as bearing something of the same relation to the bark of Peter, as the Flying Dutchman, for example, would bear to a firstclass British, man-of-war—and the one bond of union that binds them together was made very evident. We do not in the least suppose that the Rev. Dr. Stuart can, by even the most wildly credulous mind, be suspected of being that Calvinist minister advertised the other day as about to join the Right Bey, Dr. Nevill's happy family, although why union with the Church of England should necessarily rid any man of his Calvinism, while a large party in that Church, continue extreme Calvinists, it would be extremely difficult to say. In any case we are only justified in concluding that it was ,the original bond that united Dr. Stuart to Archdeacon Edwards on the occasion alluded to—that, is, the very laudable and godly interest in " Popery" indulged in by both these reverend gentlemen. Dr. Stuart, besides, took the opportunity of appearing in -a comparative light, and of knowingly bringing forward the manner in which he had been able to contrast his own benevolence as a subscriber to the Institution with the conduct of the Catholic priests in not subscribing—and would not little Jack Homer's self-congratulations have been quite fully implied in his loudly condemning the behaviour of some naughty boy ? But if a man finds it nice to be intensely conscious of his own benevolence, is it not charitable and kind of him to do all he can to make others partake in his agreeable feelings f We will not suppose, then, that the Rev. Dr. Stuart was insidiously trying to prejudice the priests in the eyes of Catholics. He was only acting as one who would cry to them, as to the public generally, " Oh 1 what a good boy am I." As to the Yen. Archdeacon Edwards, his praises should be in all our mouths. Here is a zealous, self-spending, unwearying and energetic ecclesiastic, indeed. It is not enough that he should labour at the work of uniting Christendom—for in this, we conclude, he is not out of harmony with his Bishop ; it is not enough that he should minister zealously, fervently, and incessantly, in season and out of season, like a true minister of the Gospel, to his own large and fashionable congregation, nor that he should labour day and night at promoting the general intents of the not overflourishing local branch of the Church of which he is a dignitarybut he can also find leisure to contemplate the shortcomings of the Catholic people, as well as to ponder over and lament the wrong direction taken by their efforts, and spare a moment to admonish and instruct them. The only wonder is thati with such active and devoted ecclesiastics as the Yen. Archdeacon Edwards to guide them, the members of the Church of Koglaud have not long since erected a cathedral for themselves much finer than that the Catholics are now building, for they certainly are not an illiberal people—and zealous eecltsiastics can, as * rule, accomplish' wondere with their flocks. However, we learn that the Archdeacon is quite pleased with the « gorgeous edifice " the Catholics are erecting, and even considers them deserving of, praise, .although, he tninks the cure of bodies quite as important as $hat oisouls,—and there should be some consolation forus-imthw, fer,i of courae* Mr. Archdeacon ia very sincere in the

expression of his gratification. Our cathedral will, no doabt, form a , delightful object of contemplation for him, and, perhaps, it may even be as useful for him to 6pend the few fruitful moments of hii leisure in silently and pleasantly contemplating it, as in instructing people who understand their own business perfectly well. One little flaw, nevertheless, wo discover in all this ecclesiastical zeal in behalf of the Benevolent Institution—it seems that into the annual expenditure of the , lnstitution there enters the amount of £25, paid as a salary to a chaplain. Amongst all the preachers in Dunedin— including Mr. Archdeacon, who can find ample time to meddle with the affairs of Catholics, and pleasantly contemplate their rising cathedral— there cannot bo found a sufficient number H to minister to these poor people without payment ! In conolusion, the reasons given by the Most Rev. Dr. Morau in explaining not to the^Ven. Archdeacon Edwards or the Rer. Dr. Stuart but to the public whom such speakers would] mislead, his motivst for not subscribing to the Institution have been published as follows in a letter to the Dunedin papers. "My reason for not subscribing was' my knowledge that the Benevolent was a proselytising Institution. Surely no one with an ounce of common-sense would expect me to contribute money to have the children of Catholics taught to bate their religion and reject it. This has been done, to my eerUin knowledge, in the Benevolent Institution, Caversham, and when I complained to the committee of this outrageous proceeding, ths reply I received was that the committee were masters there, and would do as they pleased." And replying to Mr. Alexander Rennie, His Lordship again wrote. " Mr. Rennie says that during fifteen years not one of the committees attempted to proselytise the children of Roman Catholics, or manifested the least desire to do bo. This is no answer to my charge, which is that in the Benevolent Institution Caversbam, Catholic children have been taught to hate their religion and reject it, and that the committee of this institution would give me no redress. I here repeat that charge ; and I affirm, not on hearsay, but on my own personal knowledge, that in this institution Catholic children have been taught to hate their religion and reject it. Mr. Rennie may eulogise the committee as much as he pleases, but his eulogy cannot unmake a fact. Mr. Rennie says further : ' For a time priests occasionally went to impart instruction to such children, but their visits became few and far between, and were ultimately discontinued.' Mr. Rennie means to be severe, . but the facts are these : The visits of the priests, so long as they continued to give instruction in the institution, were regular and frequent. The regulation made by me was that such visits should be paid once each week, and I never had any reason for thinking this regulation was not observed. On the contrary, I had good reasons for being convinced it was well kept. It was by my directions the priests discontinued to give instruction in the institution, and the reason I had for so directing was that the children whom they bad been instructing had been all perverted, and because the committee had refused me any redress. These children were discovered more than once coming out of the room in which non-Catholic instruction was being given when the priest arrived. They on many occasions insulted the piiest, refused to answer his questions in the catechism, and they treated myself in the same way, telling me they wished to be Protestants. What can an institution in which Catholic children attend Protestant religious instruction, in which Catholic children co tampered with become Protestants, in which Catholic priests and their Bishop are insulted by such little children, and in which the Committee of Management refuse redress, be called but a proselytising institution V Wb are not inclined to be reckoned among those debasing* and people who cry out against English interference in hobriblk. the Soudan rebellion— so far, it is true, as that insurrection is a protest against foreign oppression and unjust taxation on the part of ?.gypt our sympathies are with the Soudanese, but so far as it is also a slave-dealing, a fanatical and aggressive movement, opposed to the very Christian name, and likely if of continued success, to result ia widespread mischief and slaughte

we condemn it unreservedly, and desire to see it speedily and effectually suppressed. But still it appears to us that there are no rightly feeling men who will not abhor a good deal that has been done in this matter— the English papers are filled with accounts and pictures that should bring a blush to the face of every Englishman, and of which.lriabmen as well, remembering that Irish soldiers have also had their part in it, must feel ashamed. The illustrated papers show us a horrid massacre of naked men, armed only with a spear, and falling thick before the showers of bullets and balls poured into them from a distance, or else received on the point of the bayonet, against which they rush in frenzy— piles of slaughtered corpses are pictured on every side, and nothing more disgusting can well be thought of. Of the frame of mind, moreover, formed in men who are the witnesses of .all this sickening sight we obtain some idea from such sentences as this which we take, for example, from the correspondent of the London Standard :— " The mounted infantry made during the morning splendid shooting, promptly showing to the fanatics that Qsman Digna's charms continue ineffectual. Lieutenant Davin shot one man on a camel at a full 1000 yards' range, while the condition of the etoneß behind which the enemy bad fired showed very sufficient reasons for their prompt retreat."— The coolness with which this "splendid shooting " is spoken of is very suggestive, and verily the suggestions it convey are not pleasant. We can understand how, with such a frame of mind, men can go the length to which those English commanders went who basely placed a price on Osman Digna's head, and held out a premium to assassination—for in sight of this wholesale, hideous, killing men may well become inhuman. But if this work must needs be done — and we do not deny that there may be a necessity for it— not, of course, including the intended assassination of Osman Digna which was at once condemned— is there not some reason to question the good of having its details so fully reported, written minutely by correspondents, and illustrated by artists 1 It may be necessary even to slaughter these savage braves, so as to prevent greater evils, for were they to march on Egypt unchecked unimagined horrors must accompany their invasion—not to speak of Mahommedan outbreaks that would almost certainly occur elsewhere— but the effect on the public mind of such revolting descriptions, so minutely given, must be extremely debasing, and will not only pander to, but create the vilest tastes in those who study them. Correspondence from the Soudan cannot be looked upon as of much advantage, then, and it is to be regretted that the ears of the public should itch for it.

patbe familias ?

The Rev. Dr. Stuart has returned to the charge, Referring to the letters of the Bishop of Dunedin, from which we have quoted above, at the adjourned meeting held on Monday, the rev. gentleman said,

as reported by the Evening Star, "that some Roman Catholic children might have joined with the Protestant children in singing hymns; but he was satisfied that they did not do so by the consent or instructions of the Committee. He hoped that it would be understood throughout the length and breadth of Otago that this Society had never interfered, nor intended to interfere, with the religion of the Roman Catholic inmate?. —(Applause.) He was pleased to read the manly letter of Mr. Bennie, in which he gave a fiat denial that the Committee had been guilty of the base conduct imputed to them by Bishop Moran. He hoped that the Bishop would withdraw his statement, and join his fellow-citizens in supporting the Institution.—(Applause )" This our readers will perceive to be a speech that might be made by a man willing to act the bully and able to do so because he had the mob at his back.—lt might, moreover, be the speech of a man either capahle of telling a falsehood, or so stupid as to misunderstand plain English, for if our readers will refer to the extracts we have taken from the Bishop's letters they will see that the statements made in these letters were altogether different from those assumed by Dr. Stuart. But of the sincerity with which Dr. Stuart pretends to condemn any intention to pervert the faith of Catholics and defends the committee against such an imputation we obtain a proof a little further on, where the rev. doctor is thus reported ofi referring to a statement made by the Chairman relative to the instructions given by the uncle of three Catholic children that they should not be brought up in any Church. " The Rev. Dr. Stuart regretted very imich to hear the statement just made by the chairman. He remembered that not long ago the Supreme Court of thiladelphia decided, in a case where a man had left a large sum of money to some children on the express condition that they were not brought up in any faith, that the will must be set aside. These children, referred to by the president sh< uld be brought up in the faith of the country, despite the injunction of the uncle, which the Committee were not bound by." —That is supposing the uncle's directions to be set aside these children should not be brought up in the Church into which they had been baptised but in " the faith 'of the country " and if the faith of the country were Mahommedanism or Bhuddism or perhaps even Vaudou, or Fetichism the doctor's opinion would

mest probably be the earne, so long as the children concerned ought to be Catholics.— But we see by his decision the amount of credit that may be given to any denial of a desire to proselytise Catholio chil • dren on the part of the rev. Dr. Stuart. He has here made a glaring contradiction of himself, and once more spoken in the manner of a man strong in the support of a multitude. Meantime, we should be glad to know what is the <: faith of the country "—Perhaps the doctor believes that he himself may still figure as the Pater Familias. — But if so, and if the Kirk still rules the roost, why in spite of the long monopoly it enjoyed of the Province, in spite of the laboursof its ministers, their godly exhortations from the pulpit, their roaring in the streets t their denunciations of all that was opposed to them, their noise and' violence, why has it been necessary for the reformation of the place that a band, for example, like the Salvation Army, expressly con. deraned by a Presbyterian minister of late, should enter upon the field of their apostlesbip, and to a great extent supersede them f How comes it that Bishop Nevill felt authorised, as he evidently did at the Luther meeting, to assume a superiority — even if a vague one to them f H#w comes it that'on the very site of their first church* there now stands an infidel lecture-hall, and that some of it founders were once prominent men among themselves? Whatever b t the " faith of the country," then, it certainly dees not seem to betha of the Kirk, and the ministers of the Kirk, under whose ministry all the change occurred should, if only for their own cakes, be very chary about recalling it. And, indeed, when these children grow up, if they find themselves educated as members of no church, the proliabilities are that they will belong to the majority. What the " faith of the country " may be, then, it is difficult to divine. Had Dr Stuart, however, spoken of the common bond of union, binding all the sects together here and elsewhere— and including as well as the extreme evangelical the extreme atheist — we should have understood him clearly, but the sincerity of any man to bound in repudiating the proselytism of Catholics may well be doubted. In any caße Dr. Stuart's sincerity and true mind on the subject are very plain, for he has betrayed himself in a manner as glaring as it is lndicrous.

IX the Anglo-saxon line.

The San Francisco Newt Letter is in a mighty great fuss entirely because of the Irish. Rebecca, when she also was a wily old woman, was in no greater fright, or pretended for reasons best known to herself to be in no aabout the

greater fright, daughters of Heth, than is this newspaper about the sons of Green Erin. —And is it not something if these sons actually " run the United States," and have gone out of their own country where their h&nds were tied to control the political power of one of the greatest countries in the world I—lfl —lf in so short a time they have arrived at holding in their hands the destinies of the great Republic, we say more power to them. The outcasts who have so rapidly possessed themselves of this vast control deserve to take a leading place upon the earth, and nothing can prevent them from doing bo. —The News Letter is fierce as to the matter of dynamite and attempts to make much of it against the Irish of the United States, but the trick will hardly tell among a people whom on every side we find bearing testimony to the worth of Irish settlers. —To complain, moreover, that Americans make much of the Irish for interested motives is to cast a stigma upon them for which no true American editor would permit himself to be accountable. —The News Letter, besides, appeals to the INo Popery' cry in trying to raise an alarm lest the public schools should be turned into ' Catholic seminaries,' a change, nevertheless, that would be a public gain in any case, and that considering the kind of work those schools are now doing and the strange, frowari generation they are bringing up, would be a change of inestimable value.—lt is one, nevertheless, not at all likely to take place, as the editor in question very well knows. —But the height of audacity is reached by this editor when he speaks of the Irish settlers as utterly unworthy to rank with the men whose grandfathers fought for independence. Even were it true that Ireland had not been fully represented in the war of independence —which is very far from being true, for Irish immigrants had a large part in that war, Irish settlers would still have a right to rank with the descendants of those who had fought in it. They would have such a right by virtue of the part they tooi during the civil war in saving the republic that the war of independence had founded, and when they well repaid to the United States the hospitality accorded to them, and made good their claim to gratitude in the future. When the News Letter speaks of a civil war that may break out to solve the " difficult problem/ 1 by which is meant the place that Irishmen have won for themselves in their adopted country, it would be well for those who read its words to recall the manner in which Irishmen bore themselves during the last civil war, in which they largely helped.to ward off the catas* trophe of successful secession and to save the country. If, then Irishmen are influential in the United States they have won their way well, and are able, as they deserve, to hold the position they have gained, notwithstanding the brutal cry of dynamite that cowards raise against them —to be echoed among ourselves also'in Anglo-Saxon interest* whose nature is thus betrayed,

the TBtiTH Acknowledged,

A monument is about to be erected in Paris to the memory of tbe Admiral de Coligay, the great victim in the massacre of St. Bartholomew, and over whoso memory 6O much has

religioup fury raged for so many years. Why should we, however, speak of the massacre of St. Bartholomew, the bugbear fought forward periodically to illustrate the supposed enormities of tbe Catholic Church, and, if not to frighten Catholics out of her communion, at least to scare away Protestants from entertaining anything like a charitable thought in connection with her ? We have bad occasion before now to meet this question of the massacre, and to explain its true details, and we doubt not. at all but that such a duty shall again devolve upon us—it is one we may happen upon at any moment, and under circumstances the least expected. Meantime, it is a matter of some satisfaction to find that the erection of Colignis monument is not, so far, at least, as present appearances go, to be made the occasion of renewed rage against the Church, and that it is not to be set up for a perpetual memory of asserted persecution. " It cannot be denied," says the Times, referring to an appeal made to the English people for aid towards erecting this monument, " that a study of tbe history of that terrible last half of the sixteenth century, as told in Michelet's brilliant epic, or in Henri Martin's sober and orderly narrative, leads to tbe conclusion that the struggle was, in the minds of the leadert, almost entirely political. ' The Huguenots are all Republicans/.'said their Boyahst enemies ; and this was the expression of a real fact—that in the Huguenot ranks and among their leading families were to be found the chief elements of resistance to the absolutism of the Court. It is, then, Republican France that should take the fame of the great Huguenot leader under her protection."—The religious myth, therefore, may be considered to be buried at the base of the monument, and in this there will be recognised only the memorial of a struggle between worldly powers, in which a wily and unscrupulous woman saved herself and the fortunes of her house, by slaying an enemy unawares—an honourable enemy we may admit, bnt a stern, a dangerous, and determined one.

tbe state of AFFaibs.

The political field of New Zealand at present appears to be in rather a state of confusion. No one seems to have much notion of bow parties are constituted, or how leaders are to be chosen or

followed. We have Major Atkinson on one sideband we have some suspicion, moreover, that he is going to stay there and weather the storm, after all, for he is hardly the man to let slip the advantages offered him by the nature of the situation. On another side, or two other sidep, we have Sir George Grey and Mr. Montgomery—and, somewhere else, stands Sir Julius Vogel. We have, in short, a superabundance of leaders ; but the question is which leader is to have a majority of followers. We do not know that, for our own part, we have much interest in the turn matters are eventually to take. There is nothing, as yet, to show us that tbe only question "which% affects us as Catholics is likely to be dealt with more justly by one leader than by another, and, as to other matters, probably one leader is as well qualified to deal with them as another. The" chances, nevertheless, we admit, seem to be against Sir George Grey, who would almost certainly make confusion worse confounded if, unfortunately, he managed to get hold of tbe helm of State. At the time we write again, it has been decided that none of the candidates of the East coast constituency will waive their candidature in favour of Sir Juhus Yogel, and it is therefore doubtful as to where be may obtain a seat. He will not obtain a seat at all if some people can prevent it, and, at least. on* very ugly and unwoithy argument has been urged in order to prejudice him in the eyas of electora-tbat is, that be only desires to be returned to Parliament for the purpose of pushin* his claims to certain thousands which he asserts are due to him by Uovernment-bnt such an accusation as this is as disgraceful to the man who makes it, as it is incredible to every man of an honourable wind. Meantime we shall watch the development of affairs with interest, and, not having any particular leaning in the matter, one statesman being, Eo far, pretty much the same to us as another, as we have said, we shall be able to enjoy the spectacle all the more.We confess, however, it would put us a little out to see Sir George t»rey neanng the winning-post, for we cannot be wholly indifferent to positive mischief.

BENT AGAIN OS pldndeb.

Me. Henby George has had a triumphant tour in Scotland. He has to n marched about at the tail of whole dozens of b»g.pi perB_and his hearing, not t0 Speak of his wits ' for he is sufficients bard-

v* a a .- headed, continues intact. He has Wen toasted in place of her Most Gradous Majesty, or the army and navy ;-but then no one questions bcotch loyalty, and the name of the people being made they can do what they like with impunity- aB, indeed, we do not learn now for tne first time. He has been elevated to the pulpit, and honoured in every way, as a man should be honoured who has taught a thrifty nation the abort way to growrich-or rather to sprout into riches all at once. Mr. Henry George has himself become a preacher, and in

•11 the Presbyterian Churches his scheme of " plunder " hat devoted adherents among the minister* His canse has been sanctified, i»•horr, by ieligion, and now we shall undoubtedly see it push ahead without deity. Nor is it anything new for Scotland to witness a scheme of plunder advanced to success in the name of religion, and by the aid of pious ministers— for what, indeed, was her "Reformation" but a scheme of confiscation and plunder carriefl on to a most thorough and complete success in the name of the " Gospel," and by means of its preaching. There was the difference, however, that then a blinded people were made the tools of plundering them•elves, in plundering tbe Church for the benefit of the nobles— whereas now, the people, with the aid of their Churches, pnrpose to plunder the nobles for the benefit of themselves. And the fact that the nobles and present landholders of Scotland are largely the representatives of those for whose benefit the Church, and with her the people, was plundered, certainly goes in some degree toward • justifying the confiscation that is now thought of. It would ba well moreover, if the people in resuming their old estate would also return to the Church that, to a great extent, held that estate m trust for them, and the dispossessed land-holders would probably find themselves no worse off if such a return were made. In any case, tbe scheme of plunder as we said, is likely to go on and prosper— for has it not the Churchee of the country on its side, and what is there that those Churches cannot approve with a text ?— Set them down Mr. George's scheme or any other by tbe side of a Bible, and they will produce to yon chapter and Terse ad Übitvvi, to convict every man who opposes it of heresy, and brand him with impiety, and all with authority, of equal right, undoubted.— But it was in Dundee that Mr. George's triumph culminated. The citizens there were perfectly delighted to be told— that is, of course, the citizens who owned no ground-rents— that if they were only to close on the property of their neighbours they would be possessed of £640,000 a year.— Mr. George especially pointed out t his «dmirers a certain allotment of land needed for the perfect symmetry of their town tall, but whose owner, or monopolist, had withheld it from sale—thus proving himself a Naboth, whose Achab, the public, would hare acted in a most praiseworthy manner by robbing him- and Mt. George, having the Scriptures at his fingers' ends, particularly all their provisions relating to land, must have remembered the case alluded to. But £640,000 taken from th owners of property in Dundee and spent on the population generally would .accomplish wonders— especially that wonder of giving to every widow in the town an annuity of £100.— Mr. Weller has made us acquainted with tome of the characteristics of widows as they actually exist— does ifc remain for Mr. George to acquaint us with the qualities of ladies determined, come what will, to become widows ?— With a premium of £100 a year placed on the head of every dear deceased, Heaven only knows what tbe world would come to, the female world above, all— and may the knowledge remain in Heaven or in any other region, however opposite, far removed from earth.— But is there not a question as to whether the very residence in Dundee itself alone would not constitute a kind of unearned increment, and what right would the residents in that town have to tbe benefits of residing there which they had alone nothing themselves to gain 2 Meantime we recognise the much-vaunted thrift of the Scotch nation. How finely it is illustrated in this enthusiastic reception of Mr. George's scheme of plunder, and how readily th religion of the country adapts itse!f to it.— The "unaided Word' has once more fouDd a doctrine that it is called upon to sustain against all the world, and we doubt not that in the hands of the ministers it will, as usual, be fully equal to the occasion and do all that is required of if.