Current Topics AT HOME AND ABROAD.

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XII, Issue 26, 17 October 1884, Page 1

Current Topics AT HOME AND ABROAD.

We always hold to the opinion that all sorts and he kbaxlt conditions of men may be sincere in their convicbeueyes IT I tions, however queer those convictions may seem

to other people, and we believe that incredulity concerning men's simplicity is quite as rauch a note of ignorance of the world as to be over-credulous is. People have even died for such strange notions as may convince us that nothing is too extravagant for men to hold in all sincerity. When Joan Bocher, for example, was brought to the stake by the martyr Cranmer because of her error concerning the Incarnation, she declared that her persecutor was about to burn her for a bit of flesh, as he had burned Anne Askew for a bit of bread, in which he had himself afterwards come to believe — as in fact he had — and to the last she maintained that her i wholly incomprehensible doctrine was the truth and must prevail. We can believe that Mr. Moody is sincere in implying that his calm method of evangelisation is a necessity to the salvation of mankind — as we can further believe in General Booth's sincere and conscientious encouragement of the excitement attendant upon his own particular ministrations, and which causes Mr. Moody to wonder how on earth the General and his family have managed to survive so long. We have, therefore, no difficulty in believing that the Right Rev. Dr. Nevill does indeed hold the curious beliefs that are to be made out here and there among the general confusion of his address on the eucharißtic occasion of the Seabury Centenary— as celebrated in St. Paul's pro-cathedral on Wednesday week. We may even believe that his Lordship holds it to be in accordance with good taste and quite consistent with an address delivered on a solemn and momentous occasion that a right rev. preacher may use what in truth is nothing better than slang — that is the term Romanist, which, so far as etymology is concerned, is a gross barbarism, and in the matter of good manners is vulgarly offensive. But the odium tlicologicum, that is po marked a feature of weak minds, may account for its use by certain divines even on a solemn occa-ion — and, at all events, we may allow that Dr. Nevill had no suspicion whatever that the term was out of place. As to the address in which the term occurred, beyond a certain sensation of confusion that remains in the mind of those who read it. there is really very little to remember. It is stated that certain Scotch bishops of the Church of England performed a very praiseworthy deed and conferred an immense benefit on America one hundred years ago by consecrating in some way or another, involving apparently, according to the preacher, excessive self-sacrifice and devotion, an ecclesiastic concerning whom we are told little or nothing, but who is supposed to have contained in him the Church. When the Church of England was first set up, nevertheless, the doctrine was that it was contained in the King. Such was certainly the doctrine of Cranmer, and it was repeated after-

wards by Barlowe, who acted as chief consecrator in the rather

doubtful ceremony by which Parker was consecrated, and whose own / consecration was something more than doubtful. He made light of the matter, and pronounced it of no importance whatever. Indeed,

there is the best reason to believe that had it not been for the decision

of Elizabeth, whose genuine belief, however she may have outraged it, was in the Catholic doctrine in which she had been instructed, there would have been no pretence made of a consecration at all,

and, whether the pleasant story of the Nag's Head be true, or whether

a more solemn mockery of the ceremony of consecration was gone through with, all that was done or attempted in the affair originated

with the Queen— in wfcom, moreover, according to the testimony of certain chosen theologians and canonists it lay to supply for all deficiene'es since t-he was the head of the Church. The Irish Archbishop Creagh, to whom Queen Elizabeth at firstapplied, refused her request, and would officiate sacrilegiously on consideration of no promises or offered

rewards whatever. And perhaps it was as well for the pretensions of English High Churchmen of the present day that he did so. Had he agreed to perform the consecration, how would it have been possible for them to deny that their allegiance was doe to Rome ? Although perhaps the difficulty would prove light to a body of Churchmen who claim an apostolic succession descended to them pure through a line of ecclesiastics that their Church h&H authorita.

tively declared to have been for eight hundred years the votaries of an " abominable idolatry," and who insist that the derivation of their orders and hierarchy from a See established by the Pope involves no dependence on the Holy See, but may be the link that unites them with a Church that existed in the countiy prior to the arrival of the Pope's Archbishop, St. Augustine, and hostile alike to St. Augustine and Rome. These are freaks of an accommodating imagination that speak vol ames for the ingenuity of those accountable for them, and it is, therefore, not impossible that had the consecration of Parker been performed by the Catholic Archbishop of Armagh, as Hizabeth desired, %•$ should still find High Churchmen of the Church of England claiming to be the direct and legitimate successors of an early Bw 8h Church. An Act of Parliament or two might, perhaps, have been passed, if not to establish the existence of the early Church* at least to get rid of the undesirable Roman taint — as was actually done, for example, to supply for deficiencies in the form of consecration long after that form was said to have been used in the case of Parker, and had actually been employed in the consecration of other so-called bishops. On the other hand, less ingenious writers of the Church of England have been of more consistency, and have made light of the apostolical succession that they very well knew did not belong to them, and of the orders which, according to their own authoritative homily, they must have obtained from abominable idolaters. Whittaker, for instance, tells Catholic ecclesiastics to keep their orders to themselves, and Fulke elegantly speaks of them as "stinking, greasy, aati-Christian orders." But the conferring of orders,* and the obtaining of an apostolic succession at any time" should be an easy thing according to Dr. Nevill, for he tells us that, on the occasion of the consecration of Rheinkens, the Archbishop of the " Old Church of Holland " (" Canaille Janseniste ') had-"^ut forward the supposition— whether In high or low Dutch it is impossible for us to say, but probably the particular language in which nonsense is talked is not of much concern— that perhaps his Grace's Church had been kept alive merely for the sake of, at some time or another, giving birth to another one, and, we may add, that if that other one does not surpass in fertility and usefulness the one over which Rheinkens was set. the breath will have been kept in the Old Church of Holland to very little purpose. Even DrNevill, it might be supposed, would have the wit to see that by this time. But in connection with that great work of devotion and sel^ sacrifice on the part of certain Scotch bishops, the consecration of Bishop Seabury to an American See, we are given to understand that there was a bond of persecution by Puritans that bound together in brotherly union the Episcopalians of the United States and those of Scotland. We are not told, as we might, nevertheless, well be, that there was also a bond, and a still more considerable one, of the persecution of Puritans by Ep iscopalians, which might also unite the communities in qutstion, for, if American Puritans persecuted Episcopalians, let it not be forgotten that it was to escape from persecution by Episcopalians they had emigrated to America. If > again, Queen Anne died before she could carry out her pious intention of endowing four bishoprics in America, as Dr. Nevill tells us, we know that she also died before she could carry into execution the measure she had had passed to educate by force the children of Dissenters in the tenets of the Church of England. Further, there may, indeed, be reasons why King William 111. was hardly a man to care much about the Church — although, we may remark in passing, that the same Church in Ireland is in some quarters supposed to have been the most cherished object of bis affections— but the fact of his having been the author of the massacre of Glencoe need not by any means have been among the reasons in que-tion, as Dr. Nevill suggests it was. Those, in fact, who proved themselves quite as capable as was William of heading a massacre like that of Glencoe had the occasion offered, had been the warmest and most devoted champions of the Church in question, and for all that bloodshed and torture could reasonably accomplish, they certainly were accountable. Of what was done in Ireland by thoss who cared very much about the Church of England this is not the place to speak, but the name of any massacre whatsoever fitly recalls it, and their treatment of the Covenanters in Scotland was only less barbarous, as the time over which it extended was much shorter. But Bishop Nevill has now exuberant hopes of Scotland.; people there, he tells us, are returning t:> the " Church of tbeir^ fathers " even more quickly than can be desired, And that Presbyterians should enter the Church of England

in name— and half-ashamed of being that same, if the truth were known. The manner in which evidence is procured, and Unmitigated convictions are obtained in Ireland has been of DISOBACB late revealed in more cases than one, and the revelations made have been infinitely discreditable. Their effect, indeed, must be to make the law, and the officials engaged in administering it more suspected than ever, or, perhaps, not s o much Buspected, as fully known to be corrupt and infamous. From the Lord Lieutenant who is the highest representative of Government in Ireland down to the sub-constable who is the lowest — and verily no character can well be lower than that of the policeman in Ireland who thoroughly acquires the spirit of hi 9 trade, and enters with zest into all its requirements. Informer, bully, spy, and whatever else is basest among humanity enter into his calling, and from the agreeable and elevating occupation of pig-driving which serves to employ him in times cf peace to that of bludgeoning, shooting, or bayoneting the people to whom he himself has once belonged, in times of disturbance, all the duties connected with his office are degrading. We speak of the policeman who takes willingly and con tentedly to his calling. Borne who adopt i*. escape in disgust at the earliest opportunity, and some less fortunate are obliged by circnmstances to continue in leading a life against which all that is manly in them revolts. We have, then, heard the testimony borne by the unhappy men^ Philbin and Casey touching the manner in which the unprincipled Crown Prosecutor Bolton drove them into sweaiing away the life and liberty of innocent men.— Not that we desire to excuse the wretched fellows themselves iv the least degree, for what man worthy of the name could be driven even by the iear of death into the commission of murder ? But the revelation made betrays the manner in which informers are procured, and reflects endless disgrace on those who employ such means, as well as utterly discrediting the justice so brought about. Another case of a somewhat similar kind is that in which a man named Thomas Finnerty, the father of Patrick Finnerty accused in company of four others of a murder committed at Craughwell in November 1881, complains of the attempt made to draw his son into turning informer and betraying to death or servitude for life the men arrested with him. Finnerty who in a letter to the Dublin Freeman points out the falsehood of the solicitor-general's reply to Mr. Healy iv Parliament, asserting that the prisoners had offered to plead guilty to a charge of con spiracy to murder— says that his son had been offered a large sum of money together with his liberty if ,he would consent to give incriminating evidence against his companiois which, however he refused to do. The writer farther states that the suggestion of pleading gailty to a charge of conspiracy to murier had been made, not by the prisoners but by the Crown, which, ca. the disagresmsnt of the jury that sat during the first trial, offered to withdraw the capital charge on such conditions. — Conditions, Jhowever, .which innocent men, says Thomas Finnerty would not accept — and he challenges the KJlicitor-general to publish the correspon ienca that took place in the matter. The third case, we notice is that at Tubbercurry where certain members of the police force interested themsalves in obtaining the evidence to suit them of a drunken man— and in order that he should testify more to their desires made him still more drunk. The device was a particularly ba93 one, and it 3 features were coar33 and brutal ( as we should, however,inaturally expect to find in connection with men occupying one of the mwt degraded situations in the whole world — that of members of the Irish constabulary, sunk to the level of their calling. Taking them all in all, then, the revelations made of late concerning the course of justice in Ireland have been exceedingly disgraceful, and must tend strongly to confirm the suspicions already entertained by the people.

Whatever may be the real intentions of Germany the with regard to the establishment of a colonial DANGER empire, there can be no doubt whatever that France thickens, is very much in earnest in her determination to acquire such an empire for herself. What she has done in Tonquin and some of the neighbouring states we know, and now a warning comes from the correspondent o£ the Times at Bankok that timely action on the part of England can alone prevent her from eventually annexing Siam. The annexation of Cambodia ha a paved the way for the re-opening of the question as to the position of the ' provinces of Batambong and Korat, declared in 1866 to belong to Siam, bat concerning a French claim to which signs already begin to manifest themselves. The French, moreover, have proposed to the Siamese Government, which fears to offend them, the establishment of a line of steamers between Saigon and Bankok, although no trade whatever exists to require such an establishment —and Siam understands what all this means, and is m consequence extremely uneasy. If Russia, then/is approaching India on one side, France is building up an empire on another, and, as the correspond dent to whom we have alluded says, danger may follow in the not distant future. In the meantime in India itself the native Press is

pouring out torrents of the most vile abuse on their English rulers. There is no appeal made to a sense of patriotism, a feeling to whose, height the Indian masses have not yet risen— if they aie ever destined to reach such an elevation— but the interests that even the ullest and most degraded of the people is concerned with are those hat are touched upon. The papers, in queetion, moreover, circulate largely among the lower orders of the nation who are ready to adopt all the opinions they put forward. They are told that the people are called rebels because they lament for having been robbed, and idle when starvation prevents them from working ; that the foreigners are sucking their country dry. " Foreigners have taken possession of India and are sucking her dry, The people of India look on in a helpless manner. Their best iuterests are sacrificed for the benefit of the English. Over and above this, the innocent natives are insulted and killed. At every step the people send up a cry for succour, when the English whip or the English kick falls npon them. The demons are engaged, heart and soul, in violating the chastity and taking the lives of Indian females. What a heart-rending scene I It is matter of regret that the people of India do not gird up their loins to- get rid of the oppression of the white men." It may be impossible, as we have been told it is, to inspire the Indian masses with a sentiment of patriotism or to evoke among them a spirit •laiming manly independence. We know, however, the fierce struggle they are capable of sustaining, and the terrible deeds they can perform when a sufficient causa stirs them up, as in the case of the Sepoyfrebellion, to take offensive action. At any rate it is evident that with such utterances disseminated among them, and taking full possession of their minds a very effective foundation i 9 being laid for the work of agitation among them that it may serve French or Bussian purposes— or possibly a combination of both— sooner or later to undertake. France, therefore seems bent on the acquisition of an extensive eastern empire, and her designs may well be looked upon with suspicion by England. The Dublin Notion is surprised and evidently pained the T&UE because the French Press takes the side opposed to beason. the Irieh national cause. Our contemporary, indeed , admits that correspondents naturally take their tone from the people among whom they reside, and that therefore the English correspondence of the French newspapers may well be anti-Irish, hut he does not understand how editors in France who should have a knowledge of the true state of the case are also opposed to Ireland. But the Republican Press has been against us from the first, and the reason that it has been so should not be hidden fromanyone who will take the trouble to consider the matter, nor should it indeed occasion much trouble to the friends of Ireland. The Continental liberty of the present day, and that moreover, which, arising in the Continent, seeks to prevail and with some chance of success throughout the world is but liberty in name. At heart it is a tyranny of the most oppressive and narrow nature, and although the excesses to which itself aspires are extreme the limits it assigns to those who are not its supporters and advocates are confined in a very strait degree. M. de Lavelaye, for example, the Belgian writer and statesman tells us in an article in the Contemporary Eeviem in which be deprecates universal suffrage because it "gives unlimited power to the Church of Rome in all those countries where the Catholic faith is dominant" that M. Gambetta had given him such advice*-" Do not adopt universal suffragein your country," said M. Gambetta, "it will put you under the yoke of the Clergy."- And in this the secret and explanation of the whole thing are contained. A Catholic people must have no liberty; their faith is to be crushed, their Church overthrown, and their children are to be estranged from them, and brought up before their eyes to worship gods they never knew and that they reject with horror. Universal suffrage whea it is the instrument of a tyranny that Bhall accomplish all this, when it is sure to be the means of accomplishing all that the men who advocate it desire to see accomplished, and of repressing or ciercing all that they desire to have repressed or coerced, when it makes the masses the tools of oppressors is to be sought for, but otherwise it must be opposed. And have we not in this the principle of tho most detestable tyranny that has ever existed I— Dionysius or Nero, Louis XI. or Ivan the Terrible, not one of these, nor any other tyrant, has ever refused to accord the degree of liberty necessary to the carrying out of his will.— And the advocates of your modern liberty who support it because they desire to stamp out religion, to secularise the world, to crush the Catholic people everywhere, are bitter tyrants. It is because of this that the republicans of France adopt a tone hostile t o Irish nationalism. — Here is a freedom with which they have nothing in common. — There is a certain school of Catholics who are opposed to Irish nationalism because they believe it makes common cause with the revolution, and leans towards communism and nihilism. They fear it as hostile to religion, and are among its most determined opponents. But the revolutionary party know batter ; they recognise the national struggle for what it is in fact— a fight for liberty — as much for unrestricted right of worshipping God as for any temporal advantage.— Their sympathies must, indeed, refuse

according as their fortunes grow we can well understand. Scotland grows wealthier every day, we are told, and with wealth come luxury and softer ways, but it is impossible for any except a people of considerable powers of endmance, and some roughness, to suffer the Presbyterian service or even to entertain the 6tern Presbyterian doctrines, and, by all others, as a matter of course, a more refined and less trying methoi of worship, as well as a looser code of doctrine will be sought for. The Church of England seems for the time to answer all the need, and, under the circumstances, it is but natural she should increase. To hear her called the Church of the Scotch peoples' fathers, nevertheless, must prove a surprise to many, and to none more than those fathers themselves. They knew nothing of her, and, as we have seen, resisted her even to death and torture when it was sought to impose her upon them. She herself, when she first arose had made common cause with the Presbyterian Church, and acknowledged her as a sister, and it was rather the Presbyterians that manifested mistrust and dislike of her. McCrie, for example, in his Life of Knox, tells us that the fathers of the English Reformation were very far from holding ordination by a bishop to be necessary; they welcomed Knox gladly as a fellow-minister, when he went to England ; Archbishop Grindal authoritatively acknowledged the validity of the orders conferred by tbe Synod of Lothian, " according," as he wrote, "to the laudable form and rite of the church of Scotland " on one Mr. John Morrison, and Wbittingbam, Dean of Durham, was ordained at Geneva in the church of which Enox was pastor. At the present day, again, the august lady who has succeeded Queen Elizabeth as the head of tho Church of England constantly gives us the practical example that she is of the same opinion with the founders and first ministers of the Church over which she presides, for when she visits Balmoral she attends the service of the Kirk. That her Majesty, moreover, is quite as ready as Queen Elizabeth was to vindicate her position as head of the Church, we were given reason to believe a little time ago when the late Duke of Albany, in addressing a public meeting in presence of the Bishop of London and some other prelates, spoke of the Archbishop of Canterbury as standing next to his royal mother in the primacy. It would seem, however, that Bishop Nevill claims also for Scotland some antediluvian church, whose representatives the present Episcopalian clergy there are. And there are quite as good grounds for his doing so as there are for the extraordinary notions he and his party entertain with regard to their Church in England— that is, there are no grounds for such a belief at all. But, as we have said, the opinions men are capable of sincerely entertaining are of great extravagance, and, so far as we have had an opportunity of judging, Dr. Nevill may be taken as an advanced example of the men in question. Let us give him all the credit he deserves — that is, for sincerity in foolishness at the very best. According to Hansard, two debates took place Friends AND last month in the House of Representatives that FOES. give Catholics some information as to those members upon whom they may reasonably look as fii >nds or f«,ep. The first was that on the Education vote, in which — notwithstanding the fact that, as certain of our contemporaries have reminded us now and then, there are Catholic members in the House — the only friend we bad to speak a word in defence of our interests was Mr. Turnbull, the member for Timaru. And verily it would appear that Catholics need to be reminded in some way by strangers that members of their Church are in Parliament, for unless by the means taken by the said members to convince the Colony generally and in which they are for the most part eminently successful, that they have no sympathy whatever for their Church, and are in no degree concerned about the interests of their fellow Catholicp, it would be impossible to distinguish them as Catholics. Mr. Turnbulj spoke as follows, referring to Sir Julius Vogel's statement that Government had resolved to withdraw their proposal for a reduction in the education vote :— " I protest against this action, on behalf of the Catholic population of this country, who are suffering under a great hardship. You not only inflict on them bodily hardship, but you also inflict the greatest possible injury upon them in another way ; and when I take into consideration that one-seventh of the population of New Zealand are compelled to withdiaw their children from the schools, and to go to great expense and to make great sacrifices in order to educate their children themselves, I think that this proposal is one of the most illiberal acts that could be brought forward. I regret that such a selfish Btep is to be taken as to refuse to make this small reduction in the education vote. I feel deeply grieved at what, I think, chows a want of firmness on the part of the Government. The proposition having been defended by the Premier last evening with such great ability, why should they now come down and cay they will withdraw the proposition ? If such is to be the conduct of the Government, I do not know how we are to depend upon them in respect to other measures which they may bring down. I protest, on behalf of the Catholic population, against such action, brought about by what I cannot but consider to be selfish motives.' 1 Mr. Robs, the member for Roslyn, who is understood to be a leading advocate for the application of the " starve'em-out " policy to the

Catholic schools, congratulated the Government on their determination, and speaking, as be did, immediately af er Mr. Turnbull,- we may lawfully draw the conclusion that bis approbation was accorded principally because be saw that the danger of yielding some slight relief to the plundered Catholics had been avoided. The Catholic schools can hardly be starred out effectually unless the people who support them are thoroughly impoverished, and Mr. Boss will not be to blame if any failure occurs in that respect. In the debate on the School Committees Election Bill, Mr. Turnbull spoke again, in answer to the argument of Mr. Shrimiski that the abolition of cumulative voting would give Catholics " more ground for complaint, as they would then be deprived of power to elect any member for themselves to a School Committee." And the admission on Mr. Shrimeki's part that Catholics have already any ground for complaint rather surprises us. Mr. Shrimski, as we all know, is a member of the Jewish Church, and as such takes a very aident part in the promotion of the. system by means of which the Jews and atheistical Free* masons hope to destroy the Christianity of the world and to blot out the name of the common object of their hatred— the infame of the atheist, the Nazarene of the Jew. We are nut surprised to find that he is aware that Catholics have grounds for complaint, for that anyone must see, but rather at his making any acknowledgment of the fact, and we can only attribute his having done so to a slip of the memory or tongue. Catholics will have much weightier grounds to complain than they even now have if Mr. Shrimski and the men he in truth represents ever obtain the full exercise of their sweet will. Mr. Fergus was more cautious, and thought the bill should be opposed as it would give Catholics "a tangible reason on which to bang up a grievance." And we may add in passing that Mr. W. J. Hurst had been foolish enough to call the present Education Act a ''sacred thing." But to quote Hansard " Mr. Turnbull would not have risen but for the remarks that had fallen from the honourable member for Oamaru, who said that so long as the cumulative vote was retained the Catholics had no real ground of complaint in this matter. He could tell the honourable gentleman, as far as that was concerned, that the Catholics did not interest themselves or interfere in these elections at all. Besides, it would be simply a mere sham if they did so. The Catholics were one-seventh of the population, and for them to put one member on the Committee by cumulative voting would be doing what was simply useless. He wished to point out that they desired to have nothing to do with the schools. They, the Catholicp, thought it indispensable and necessary that religion should form a part of school education, and he believed every Christian man should do co. It was simply a sham, and an excuse to persecute the Catholics, to keep this in. He was surprised that any men calling themselves Liberals could exercise such a cruel tyranny on a body of people. They were made to pay the taxes and erect their own schools. In a few years such treatment would be looked on with astonishment. If this bill were passed they would remove a sham from the education system. This honest, outspoken protestation requires no comment, and it was followed up in a manner equally praiseworthy by Mr. Dodson. "Mr Dodson said that anyone who had listened to the debates in the House on the education question would arrive at this conclusion that there was a feeling on the pait of the majority of honourable members that the education system should not be interfered with. They heard that repeatedly, when this question came up. To his mind, that was the very reason why it should be discussed. These honourable gentlemen had no confidence in the justice of the present system, or they would not be afraid to trust it to the good feeling and judgment of the House. They knew that it was not perfect, or in accordance with the wishes of the country or of the majority of the House. He knew no Act so sacred that it must not be interfered with ; and this Act of all Acts had blemishes and faults that called aloud for interference and redress. 'While they plumed themselves on having an Act that would educate their children, they should extend it to all their children, and not leave one-seventh of the population out, as was done under the provisions of this Act. They knew there was a section of the community who would not come under the operation of the Act as it stood. If they were in earnest in the continuance of the present system, it was their duty to see that it was based on justice and fairness. If they did so they would look on the present system with feelings very different from those they had now. He, for one, would never be satisfied with the Act. They had heard that evening that the cumulative vote was a conces sion to the Catholics. It was a concession which bad been rejected. In very few instances had the Catholics endeavoured to put members on the Committees, nor did they wish to do so. (Oh I) He was speaking generally. There might be isolated cases. He distinctly denied thai this was any concession to the Catholics. They did not want it. He would not rest satisfied with the education system until it gave justice to that large body of people, and removed the disabilities which they now laboured under." Where, meanwhile, were those Catholic members of whom our contemporaries have spoken ? Echo, perhaps, at least if it were like that far-famed and sensible one we had at home, might reply — Just wherever they could best make it plain to their Protestant supporters that they were Catholics only

to include a Catholic people seeking for justice, but in the justice they eeck for makiner room also for the claims of religion.— The French Press, then, opposes tbb Irish cause, not merely because its correspondents have adopted the tone of the English community in which they reside, but because false liberty is one with tyranny, and ite advocates and supporters can only feel dislike and enmity against the true liberty that shames the lie to which they adhere—Under the circumstances, therefore, we say the hostility of the French Press to the Irish cause is a matter for congratulation rather than regret, and a testimony to the sound mind of the Irish people, and their sincerity, faith and truth.