Current Topics

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XVI, Issue 49, 29 March 1889, Page 1

Current Topics

AT HOME AND ABROAD.

Mb. Herbert Spencer has recently publisbcl in ROUND AEOU- New York en essay in which he lepeats and MENT FROM HER- emphasises an argument already published by him BERT spenceb. many years ago, and which certainly has an important bearing on at least one great question of the present uay. The great political superstition of the pabt, says Mr. Spencer in this essay, was the divine right of kings, and the great political superstition of the present is the divine right of Parliaments. But the divine right of Parliaments, he explains, meanß the divine right of majorities. la what, then, doea the divine right of a majority consist? This, says Mr. Spencer, he has decided in an essay published by him in 1854 , and from which he now quotes. The right of a majority, he repeats, is a purely conditional right valid only within specific limits. And this point he proves by a reductio ad absurdnm, "Suppose," he writes, " that at the general meeting of some philanthropic association it wag resolved that in addition to relieving distress the association should employ home-missionaries to preach down Popery. Might the subscriptions of Catholics, who had joined the body with charitable views, be rightfully used for this end ! Suppuse that of the members of a book-club, the greater cumber, thinking that under existing circumstances riflc-practioe wav more important than reading, Bhould decide to change the purpose if their union and to apply the luurts in band for the purchase of powder, ball, and targets. Would the rest be bound by this decision ? Suppose that under the exeitcmen' of news. from Australia, the majority of a Freehold Land Society should determine, not simply to start in a body I' )r the gold dig^in^s, but to use their accumulated capital to provide ouiiits. Would this appropriation of property be just to the minonty ? and must these join the expedition ? Scarcely any one would voutuie an affirmative answer oven to the first of thpse question?, much less to tbe o'hers." And the reason, explains Mr. Spencer, is because no man can be justly involved in acts oppose 1 to the purpose for which he hns jnine 1 the Society. For the majority, he adds, to coerce the minority into undertaking unspecified objects is nothing less than gross tyranny. Hi? conclusion is as follows .—"I. — "I again emphasise the proposition that the members of an incorporate! body are bound 'severa'ly to submit to the will of the majority in all matters concerning the lulfilment of the objects for which they are incorporated ; but in n) others.' And I contend that this holds of an incorporated nation as much as of 9n incorporated company. ' The case to which this argument most particularly Bpplies, meantime, n that of the godless schools, — a case, moreover, very plainly and strikingly lllu-traterl by Mr. Spencer's first example of the rnluctUi ad ab.snrdum, quotiel by us above. The minoiity in this instance is ceithinly not incorporated with the majority oe the specific understanding that measures bhould be carried and enforced to rob their children of the religion in which they desire to see them educated. The very contrary is the case, and a direct pledge has been given by the Government of the nation th it their religious freedom shall be maintained. When, therefore, the majority indirectly sets aside this pledge and coerces the minority into supporting the secular system, they are guilty, as Mr. Spencer argues, of gross tyranny. The secularists are convicted out of tbe mouth of a prophet of their own — who. nevertheless, has in more than one argument testified against them. One of the most important publications lately AN important made on the Irish question has been a book entitled advocate. -'Llrelande et I'Angleterre depuis l'Acte d'Union jusque a nos joure. The author of this book is M. Francis dc PressenK-. son of a Protestant pastor of high repute in his own country, and generally iY|rhrded with rewpect throughout civilized Europe, especially in England, where he is looked upon as the best traditions that unite the Protestantism of the two countries. M. de TressenEe, then, as might be expected from k his position and the antecedents of his family, brought to the study of the question on which he has win ten a mind piejudiced 'igains-t tl c IriHh cause and prepared to justify tie English Government in

the past and support them in the present. He, however, also brought to the task a candid mind and the principles of an honest mm, and the natural consequences were the result. Instead of justifying and supporting the English Government and condemning the Irish people as irrationally truculent aod kicking against their own interests, M. de Presseme. enlightened by his studies, has taken up their cause warmly and beenme an ardent supporter of Mr. Parnell. The importance of his undertaking, meantime, may be gathered from the following extract from a letter written to him by Mr. Gladstone to whom he had «nt a copy of his book: — •' I have often told my opponents that the civilised woild is against them. They think that is f also because the Continental Press is not unanimous in our favonr. I did not allude to those ephemeral opinions often dictated by motives quite foreign to the question. I seek the feeling of the civilised world, above all, in its literature. In this great trial between England and Ireland I do not know a single European writer who has acquitted the greater and stronger nation. The general judgment, I am sure, will be confirmed and consolidated by your diligent researches and impartial sentiments. I very sincerely hope tha* your work will attract great attention not only on the Continent, but also in England."— lt is evident, therefore, that in M. de Pressense the Irish cause has gained an important advocate. The anxiety of Mr. Chamberlain that Mr. Gladstone A new should make a detailed statement of his Irish policy depasture, seems to receive an explanation in the announcement that, in conjunction with Lord Salisbury, he is engaged in drawing up a Bill dealing with local government for Ireland, to be introduced next session. It would seem, therefore, that the faith of tin* Unionists in twenty years of coercion, as proposed by Lord Salisbury, bas been shaken, and that, a'ter all, they are turning their minds to a measure of conciliation. Nor is the reason of this new departure far to seok. Recent events, added to the evident failure if the regular coercion campaign, sufficiently explain it. Whatever may hare been the effect produced by the Pigott fiam> in Parliament — where a struggle for dear life, holds the Unionist party together — there is no doubt that the effect on the country generally has been very great. And to the country, let them hold out as loDg as thay can, the Unionists must eventually come. They cannot, even as it is, and while they ar? secure of a Parliamentary majority, afford to set the country wholly at defiance, but must take some steps, in some way or another, to satisfy and appease it. Something will be gained if, by a promise of consideration for Ireland, they are helped to get through the remainder of the present session in comparative quietness. We may, however, gather from what has been reported that a scheme of bujing out the landlords, or an extension of Lord Asbbourne's Act, will be a leading feature in whatever is proposed. That a peasaot-proprietory should be created in Ireland we have always considered an essential condition in any settlement made, and, fo far so good, there is no objection to be urged against the undertaking in itself, even as proposed by a party whose designs may be, nevertheless, looked upon with suspicion. The queHtion, however, naturally arises as to the ends the Unionists havo in view in making their proposal. Is the proposal intended for the genuine welfare of the country ; or is it to be tiken as a kind of sop thrown to Cerberus, so that attention may be diverted, and the mind of the people distracted from the trae need I Is it intended to divide the people fiom their leaders by drawing them off on a path of selfishness, and so engaging each man's mind with hia own private interests, or the specious promise of them, as to render him clueless towards the general good of the country ? Without the watchful understanding and the fostering care of a good home Government, even the creation of a peasant-propnetory wouli do little towards permanently improving this state of affairs, and this is a point that should be kept prominently before the eyes of the people. But, again, is this proposal of the Unionists intended rather foi the benefit of the landlords than for that of the people ; Is it primaiily meant to enable that favoured class to make good their escape with well-fillcl cciYers, and to leave behind them a people saddled with n debt thit they could never get rid oi .' This, although it would oe in accoi Jauee with Tory instincts, and might be supposed to react I ivour.ibly on the land question in great Britain, would still be an undertaking Iciught with danger. The matter, in short, would very narrowly concrn the IJntiijh taxj.njer, <> v whom must eventually fall the burden that the.

Irish peasant had been unable to bear, and who might be expected to visit with his wrath the party that had so encumbered him. Whatever xaaj be the true details of the situation, and we see that it is not altogether free from suspicion, it is evident that Lord Salisbury no longer feels confident in the force of coercion permanently and well applied. The whip, he begins to perceive, must fail in this instance to drive or cow the Hottentot, so that a new departure must be made. These signs of relenting on the part of a Statesman who would be unrelenting if he dared, are very hopeful and significant. Thk year of glorious commemoration has not so A CONTEMPTIBLE far been distinguished in France by any particular position. glorious manifestations On the contrary the last few months have been distinguished by disasters — financial failures ; the overthrow of weak governments ; the collapse of the great undertaking in Panama, though we may hope it has not been final, and, perhaps more deplorable than all, the success of an adventurer who seems to promise very little. We begin almost to ask what has become of the old Parisian spirit. The fierce old days of the barricades, if they were more wicked, were almost more respectable than those that now prevail. Ot the last few years enough has taken place, and died out after a little unmanly squabbling, to have ended of yore in a revolation. Is the nature of the Parisian of a cat-like kind to ba influenced by change of placo, so that the conversion o his narrow stone- paved streets into a series of wide boulevards, con atructed with a view to strategical purposes and conveniently to be Bwept with cannon, has destroyed his former spirit ? Or have tin experiences of the Commune, with the certainty that the soldiers may be employed against him, and the doubt as to their disposition to fraternise with him, had anything to do with tbe matter ? However it be, the Paris of to-day is not the Paris of old times. Nor is the Francs of to-day the France that we knew even in the more proepcrous days of the Third Empire. The centenary of the Revolution finds her in short in a position little in accordance with her timehonoured renown. What, moreover, makes the situation still more serious is tbe seeming impossibility of any change by which she may regain her Btanding in the world. The Republic, as we have seen it t can do nothing to restore her. The Orleanist monarchy would in all probability be but a repetition of what it was under Louis Philippe, a more contemptible matter than even the Republic itself. — And General Boulanger, what of him ? Lord Charleu Beresford, tor example, thinks that his advent to power may result in a war with Eugland. Boulanger, he says in effect, must do something to establish his reputation, and a war with Germany being out of the question. one with England, for which besides the present temper of the Fr< rich people, returned to their hatred and distrust of the perfidious A'bion, inclines them. Such is the position of France then, in this year of glorions recollections, in which ehe commemorates the event whose results have placed her in the position she occupies, A s^ate of humiliation and mourning would evidently become her mnch better than an attempt to brag and hold high festival. The Vie3 r oy of Cniaa, it would seem, according to THE chinesk aspecia! commissioner fiom the Melbourne Argu<i,iß yUKSTION. very indignant and very determined respecting the exclusion of his countrymen from the United States and the Australian Colonies. He even goes so far as to suggest that his Government may possibly resort to some measures more effective than protest and remonstranc3 to insure the privileges it demands as their rights for its Bubjecte. He, moreover, does not confirm that comfortable report that the Chinese Government disapproves of the emigration of its subjects— desires them to remain at home in order that they may fulfil their family and religious duties — a report, in any case, quite inconsistent with the attitude adopted by the Government towards this question of exclusion. But the Chinese authorities, while they make the protest alluded to, are themselves far more exclusive in certain respects at least, than the Government of the States or that of any of these colonies. We need not examine into their disposition towards foreigners visiting the provinces of the Chinese Empire, openly 80-called, but it is permitted 113 to doubt as to the protection to be afforded there to anything equivalent to the Chinese immigration into the United States or the Australian Colonies. Were a body of European or American miners, ioi'example, to settle on a gold-field in China, what might possibly be expected'.tobe their fate ? Th«re is, however, a State that, although nominally independent, is completely under the control of China, and, to allj.intents and purposes, a portion of her empire. That is Thibet, where she exercises arbitrary powei by means of a Minister, to whom the Government of the country is entirely subject. Into Thibet the Chinese Government will not permit even a European traveller to enter, and the two or three who have succeeded in making their way to Lhassa, its capital, have done to at the imminent peril of their Jives, and by means of subterfuge. In our own generation so strictly have the roads and passes been guarded that no one has succeeded in penetrating into the country. Expeditions, nevertheless, have been formed for tbe purpose, and have set out with high hopes, relying on

the passports and facilities apparently placed at their disposal by the Chineß3 Government. But m every instance they have been disappointed, as secret orders had been forwarded in advance of them by which all the facilities given were nullified. Disappointment in every cape has been the result, and it is well known th»t should all other preventive means fail, there are brigands within reach who might be engaged to attack and murder the too adventurous intruder. China keeps tne county of the Dalai Lama rigidly shut up from foreigners— although as it is certainly as completely under her control as any other of her provinces, all the treaty rights possessed by foreigners in any other portion of her empire should extend to it. Bluster and complaint, then, on the part of the Chinese authorities arc inconsistent with their own action. As to their threats, it depends upon circumstances as to whether they are formidable or not. If China be left to herself unaided to make the most of her resources there is not much to be feared from her. But if, as promises to be the case, she becomes possessed by means of British aid and instruction of a powerfnl fleet, she might, and very possibly would, become the ally of seme hostile power in inflicting serious injury on these colonies. Of two evils, meantime, we must choose the least, and even at the risk of provokiDg a dangerous ho&tility the duty devolves upon us to save the colonies from ruin by maintaining restrictive measures against Chinese immigration.