Current Copies

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XVII, Issue 8, 14 June 1889, Page 1

Current Copies

AT HOME AND ABROAD.

We have of late years been accustomed to hear a truth great deal about the excellence of the Buddhist concerning religion. So enamoured of the system referred to BUDDHISM, did some members of the Western nations become, in fact, that they took it upon them to set up a Buddhist propaganda'and they have at least done something towprris strengthening the religion in certain of it» own quarters. There has, moreover, more widely been a special disposition to draw comparisons between Buddhism and Christianity, which were more or less unfavourable to the latter. The reality, however, as compared with the imagination, hardly appears so excellent, or leads us to believe that the adoption of the Eastern creed would be of much benefit to Christendom. A special correspondent of the Pall Mall Gazette, tor example, who has recently paid a visit to Pekin, gives his newspaper some details that are not particularly edifying. His description relates to a monastery in the Chinese capital, into which curiosity induced him to penetrate, but out of which ho afterwards found himself exceptionally fortunate in being permitted to make his escape. The sights seen in the temple, which is under tha charge of the Buddhist monks, are not of much interest to us. They consisted chiefly of images of various sorts, some of them apparently remarkable as works of art : — " In a couple of hours," writes the visitor, " we had seen everything and came out again into the central court-yard. Here were already a hundred or more monks waiting for us, all with their heads shaven like billiard balls, and, on the whole, a set of as thorough-paced blackguards as ever I set eyes on ; filthy, vermin-covered, bloated. * scrofulous, and with tbe marks of nameless visjg stamped clearly on many < f their face*. ' I shall be glad when we arj out of this,' I, remirked, and my companion heirtily assented. But easier said than done. They crowded round us with brutal inquisitivenese, pulled us about, shouted to us, and laughed grossly as half-rational gorillas might do." The correspondent and hie companion, however replied as politely as they could, signifying at the same time their strong desire to quit the premises. This, nevertheless, was m>t to be ■o easy a task as they hoped for them. From crowding around them, the monks betook themselves to an open attack, and a fight that must in all probability have ended fatally for the visitors was with difficulty avoided, and they were obliged to pay a rather high price for permission to leave. And is this, after all, the naked truth that theosophism, for instance, clothes in Buch glowin? colours for us 1 Where in this great monastery were the sages engaged ia contemplation of far greater depth and more marvellous ineight thsn anything known even to the wifest men of the Western world? Where was the profound knowledge githercd as the fruit of ages of study, or any of the great and wondeiful things which we are assured exist among the Buddhists throughout the East 1 Let this mob of turbulent monks, evidentiy arrived at the lowest depths of degradation, answer. The fact i?, meantime, that the asserted excellence of Buddhism, like that of many other fatee systems of the present day, is due not to any real good in tbe system itself, but to the anxiety which exists in Borne places to escape from the responsibilities of Christianity, and to substitute in its stead some form of be.ief or philosophy which may no* include a warning as to the judgment to come. The inquiry that has for some time been catholic going on before a committee of the Legislature of CONSENT. Masßachuesets, relative to a Bill intended to make the maintenance of Catholic schools in the State an impossibility, is of interst to people residing in every country whpre Catholic education ia under the ban of the Government— as in our own colony. The out-spokea testimony, given by men of every nationality, for example, as to the desire of the Catholic people for a thoroughly Catholic education, and the voluntary manner in which, completely uninfluenced by the priesthood, notwithstanding the common pretence that they are so, they supporl such schools, are very important. We havj now before us, for instance, a report of the in-

quiry in question, given by the Boston Pilot, in which a good deal ocean to the effect that we have mentioned. Louis Plouf , a French Canadian, for example, testified that mo9t of his countrymen settled in bis neighbourhood, favoured, as be himself did, the Catholic schools. His children, nevertheless, he said, attended the public schools, because there was no room for them, nor for half the children applying, in the parochial schools. No priest had ever threatened him with excommunication, he added, bacause his children went to the public schools, nor had he heard tbat such a threat was made in any other case. Louis Foierer, who was of French-Canadian parentage, though a naive of the States, gave similar evidence. The French population of his town, be said, were unanimously in favour of private schools. This witness, moreover, gained applause for bis outspoken declaration against UDJust laws. The Catholic Church, be said, bad always advised compliance with the laws of the country. "'Bat does not the Church canon specify all ' just ' laws '—Witness : « All just laws, but the minute you pas* unjust laws th&t, are not fitting to any enlightened people, thsn I stand up as an enlightened man and good citizen and say lam going to fight them.' " . n appeal made by Mr Thomas Gargan,a native of Boston, however, is still more important. " None of thesa poor ignorant Catholics," be said, " have come up here to ask to bejreliaved from this tyranny to which it is claimed they have been subjected. Ie will be well for you to take a leaf out of the recent history of Germany before you put this legislation upon the statute book of Massachusetts and attempt to supervise the private schools. In 1870 Bismarck undertook to set the State above the conscience of the people. Bismarck said he would have absolute control of education, and tbat he never would go to Canossa. What was the result in proud, imperial Germany I It was not five ye irs before the son of the Emperor made a pilgi image to the Pope, asking him to do something to suppress anaichy in Germany. The Catholic Church did give its aid in that work. Gentlemen, I predict that in this country the day is not far distant when, with the monopolies upon the one hand, and discontented labour upon the other, the great conservative force which will be called on for the salvation of the Republic will be the Catholic Church. The people who, from the Commanding General of the army, General Sheridan, down to the lowest private in the ranks, have proved their loyally to this country, who have shed their blood in batting foi tl c maintenance of this Government those men, when a different mission ccmes, and they are aeked to perform somtthimr more graceful, will be as true and as loyal in the future as they have been in the past. Do not alienate them by such legislation as this. If those people have the suspicion, well grounded or not, thit you mean to persecute them, I appeal to you to respect th it suspicion. If you place this law upon the statute book, every maa of them would glory in being arrested um?er the fourth section, and he would want no prouder and better title than that, in the cause of morality and conscience, he disobeyed a bad and unjust law. I say to you, gentlemen, pause. Let well enough a'one."— We see, there* fore, bow unanimous Catholic opinion ou ths subject of education is ; how in all parts of the world alike Catholics, uncoerced and uninfiuenced by their priests, desire a Catholic education f>r their children. From the testimony of Mr. Power and Mr Gargao, again, we learn incidentally the light in which ren tance to an unjust law ij generally looked up n by hrn >urable mm- a matter that should be duly conßideed by those, for examp'e, who accus3 the Irish pe< p c o f turbulence because of their opposition to the oppression of their country.

In the Westminster Review for April a comparison an encotjrag- is made between the American revolution and the ing coMPAKi- Irish agitation of the pretent day. Tue writer first BON. states the Irish situation as it exist?, and as the

Government of coercion explains it, n situation with which we are, for our own part, sufficiently acquainted. The views in question he compares with those existing in the reign of George 111 . wita regard to Ameiica :— " In the King's speech at the opening of Parliament on the 31st October 1776, he tells us," the following passages occur : — Nothing could have afforded mo bo much gratification as to have been able to inform you that the ttoubles which have ■0 long distracted my colonies in North America were at an end ;

aud that my unhappy people, recovered from their delusion, had delivered themselves from the oppression ol their leader, and returned to their duty. But so daring and so desperate is the spirit of those leaders, whose object has always been dominion and power, that they have now openly denounced all allegiance to the Grown, and all political connection with this country, la this arduous contest I can have no other object but to promote the true interests of all my subjects . No people ever enjoyed more happiness or lived under a milder form of government than those now revolted provinces. . . . My desire is to restore to them the blessings of law and liberty equally enjoyed by every British subject, which they have so desperately exchanged for all the calamities of war and the arbitrary tyranny of their chiefs.' " " Hew," comments the writer, "as in the case of the Irish troubles of to-day, we have the Government claiming for itself a mild administration of the law, and tracing the disturbances solely to the tyranny of a few individuals ' whose object has always been dominion and power ' ; and we have it laid down as the single duty of the Executive to destroy the power of thess men and to restore to the mass of the people the enjoyment of a mild form of government, and the blessings of law and liberty," The writer goes on to quote from the speeches in support of the Addre33 various utterances agreeing with the views contained in the King's speech. The Opposition, however, had a word of common sense to urge in reply. "An amendment to the Address was drawn up by Burke and moved in the House of Lords by the Marquis of Bocklogham, and in the House of Commons by the Lord John Cavendish. This amendment states, among other things, that nothing bat gross ignorance of human nature or a spirit of adulation could induce the House to represent to his Majesty that the revolt of a whole people could possibly happen without some considerable error in the condnct which had been held towards them. In supporting the amendment the Opposition directed special attention to the last sentence quoted above from the Speech. They asked where the mighty leaders were to be found whom the Americans obeyed so implicitly, and who also governed them with so iron a rule 1 It was pointed out that not one of these leaders possessed any eminence or authority over the people till their troubles had singled them out as capable men. Mr. Washington, for example, possessed such a landed estate as several very private gentlemen in every county in England possess, which enables them to exhibit such a degree of hospitality as procures them reipect and regard in their own districts without their being heard of or known beyond thess limits. Others who now figure in the field were and would have continued still more obscure. By what magic ii it, then, it was asked, that a whole people who are represented as lawless, who are said to abhor all tbose distinctions which caution and authority have established in other parts of the world, should all at once have changed their nature so as to resign their faculties of thinking and powers of activity to a few unknown despots ? The answer was obvious, and it was merely this, that the assertion was false, and that it was, at the same time, so palpably absurd as not to merit a serious refutation. The Americans, forced together by oppression, were under the necessity which all people ever have been, and must ever continue to be, of adoptiag leaders."--" So much for the causes of the disturbances. The next point to be mentioned is tbe attitude of the two Governments with regard to the proposals of conciliation." But we know how the Coercionist Government insists on the passive submission of the Irish people before they will make any pretence of attempting to ameliorate their condition. " This is the very attitude assumed by the Ministers of George 111. We take as an illustration their statements in the debate of November 6, 1776, on the motion of Lord John Cavendish 1 That the House should resolve itself into a Committee to consider the revisal of all Acts of Parliament by which his Majesty's subjects in America think themselves aggrieved.' The Ministers opposed tbe motion on the ground that no revision could take place till the Americans had renounced their claims of independence, and again submitted themselves to Parliament. The question of independence must first be settled as a preliminary before any treaty could be entered upon or any concession male. Lord North, in stating his reasons for giving A negative, made use of langaage that is almost word for word tbe same as that used over and over again by tin Marquis of Hartington; Mr. Chamberlain, and other Tory leaders, in speaking of the Irish. He said: ' Tne Americans hive declared themselves independent, why enter into deliberation about what you are willing to concede till we first know that they acknowledge our authority ; and, after they have returned to us as subjects, till we know what would reason. ably content them ? How is it possible to form legislative regulations for those who all along have disputed our power and right of legislation ? In the debate it was again declared that Congress held America enthralled under a mo6t cruel tyranny ; that there was little doubt, from the success of the Government policy, that the arbitrary Govern, ment would soon be destroyed, and that then the great body of the people finding themselves emancipated from the cruel yoke of their leaders, would return to their duty with as much rapidity as they had before! entered into the revolt. This being once effected, Government would, it was declared, be ready to adopt the most efficacious meaiuies, not

only to remedy real grievances, but even 'to bend to their prejudices in some instances. This is a policy in all respects like that pursued by the Government of to-day ; and it has, no doubt, the merit of being quite consistent with that view of the origin of the troubles which trace them mainly to the malign influence of a few corrupt and seditious men . The writer goes on in like manner to show tbe identity of the accusations as to remedial measures brought against the Irish leaders, with those brought against the great American patriots. He also gives instances of the agreement of opinion in the country at both the periods he deals with. His conclusion is this :— '• In drawing practical lessons from tbiß parallel it mußt not not be forgotton that in 1776, as for long afterwards, the merits of the dispute in the case of America were as much the subject of debate as they are now in the case of Ireland. The verdict of history had still to be pronounced in the one case, just as now it has still to be pronounced in the other. What we have to notice is that widespread disorder are in both cases traced by Ministers to precisely the causes. In both cases precisely the same spirit ia said to animate the leadere of t.ie disturbances. The coercive nature of the policy by which these disorders are to be got rid of is in each case the same. In each case the same spirit of faction is attributed to those who oppose the Ministerial policy. And lastly, in each case, the coercive policy, and that view of the cause of tbe disorders from) which the policy springs, are supported by the same strength of opinion in Parliament and in the country. History tells us now that George 111. and his Ministers and their supporters, even though they were the educated and the well-to-do of the country, were from first to last in the wrong, as to their diagnosis of the disease and as to their treatment, Is there anything to justify us in believing that the Tory majority of to-day is wiser, or better able to calculate the causes of natural disturbances and the effects of coercion, than the Tory majoiity of 1776 ; or that the] Liberal minority of to-day is lesa wise and less far-seeing than the Whig minority of 1776 1 If not, what is likely to be the verdict of history with regard to the Tory policy in Ireland 1