Current Topics. AT HOME AND ABROAD.

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XVIII, Issue 5, 30 May 1890, Page 1

Current Topics. AT HOME AND ABROAD.

The who!e method of the Unionists in dealing with

open the Irish party is now briefly and neatly explained confession, to us by one of themßelves. It appears that lying

for reasons of State is approved and admitted as just and proper. In this case, there is no question whatever as to the lawfulness of that time-honoured and much disputed motto, " The end justifies the means." The Statesman may lie boldly if only his general character be sufficiently sound to ensure to him belief. The Doint is explained as follows in a book called " Oliver Cromwell, the Protector," which has been lately published by Mr. Palgrave, chief clerk of the House of Commons, and who is one of the most respectable members of the Tory party. — " For leaders of men in this present evil world," he writes, page 144," much allowance must be made. The higher the seat among the uppermost rooms of society, the farther is the seat-holder distanced from those irresponsible ones who, having nothing to hide, can freely speak their minds. Diplomatic fallacy must occasionally veil unsightly truth — profane curiosity compels the just and necessary lie. For such a lie a Statesman is not esteemed a liar, if he be in the main honest, if the truth be in him, and if he rest habitually in truth." Here, for example, ia the whole secret of the Pigottist conspiracy explained to us. Lord Balisbary, its chief, and who, notwithstanding its exposure, has tried still to profit by it, and to establish a claim that it bad resulted in ■übstantially proving what was desired, has certainly his Beat high ia the uppermost rooms of society. His character as being in the main honest and restiag habitually in the truth, few people would be disposed to call in question. According to the showing of his follower Mr. Palgrave, nothing more is required to justify his Lordship, as a Statesman, in the most devious courses. What, therefore, can be made of the support given by him to the traffick in forgery, and the measures taken to bring about a desirable political end ? But we may, on Mr. Palgrava's authority, understand the general tactics employed towards the Irish party, and all in amy way asscciated with them. "Unsightly truth "has been systematically veiled in their regard. What truth, m fact, could be mare unsightly than the justice of their ends and the legitimacy of the means employed to bring them about? To veil their truth the whole Unionist party have conspired, and so far as calumny and misrepresentation could go, they have effectually veiled it. But there is nothing to find fault with in that. Their whole action may be summed up as forming what Mr. Palgrave pronounces lawful as the " just and necessary he." Mr. L»bouchere, who, iD Truth, gives us the extract we have quoted from Mr. Palgrave, makes use of it to excuse his own late refusal in the House of Commons, to believe the word of the Prime Minister .-—"Whether a Member of the House of Commons," he says, " may decline to believe the Prime Minister if he ib a Peer, or the Marquis of Ailesbury if he is not Prime Minister, is a point upon which Tories and Liberals differ. Whether a prime Minister has a right to lie is also a point upon which they differ. The Liberals hold that this is not permissible, the Tories that it ib. Mr, Palgrave, Chief Clerk of the House of Commons and one of the most respected of the Tories, lays down this right as a cardinal article of the Tory faith in an interesting, though, perhaps 6omewhat one-sided, work which he has just published, entitled, ' Oliver Cromwell, the Protector.' " It is obvious, however, that Mr. Palgrave's doctrine is capable of a much wider application and, as we have said, we have seen it exemplified also in the whole dealings of the Unionist party with the Irish movement.

Some of the provisions of the Irish Land Purchase A wonderful Bill, ot which details have now reached us, Beem bill. hardly credible. Indeed, for some time, although

we saw them in plain black and white, we doubted as to whether we understood them correctly. But the Bill really and actually does propose to give, as a guarantee of the payment by the purchasing tt nants of the sums for which they become liable, the Government grants in aid of primary education, and of the support

of lunatics and the relief of the poor in Ireland. The introduction of this clause into tha Bill seemed almost too much for Mr. Balfour himself, and he has thought it necessary to explain that he did not, ia fact, contemplate any such contingency. Bat, surely, it is not usual for any statesman to introduce into a measure proposed by him a mere pleasantry — even under a form much less grim and unbecoming than that referred to. It is not surprising, however, that Mr. Balfonr B hould have thought it necessary to ixcuse himself, even in the moat glaringly incredible manner possible. But had be not contemplated the contingency he certainly would not have provided for it* Verily, the guarantee is something more than Conservative, — more eveu than ultra-Conservative. It takes us back into bj-gone ages, and placet us face to face with some of the moat grievous failings and the heaviest wants of a rougher world. Ireland, if her tenants, cajoled o r coerced, or persuaded by a mixture of coercion and cajolery, to purchase their holdings at exorbitant prices, do not pay for their land, is, for example, to be deprived of her primary schools, so far as they are lupported by public money. Why, the step would be hardly removed from that taken in the penal days when education was mad unlawful in the country. What in the present day when the tendency is to over-rate the necessity for schools, is to be thought of such a possibility ? It is, moreover, on condition that the Irish population prove exceptionally destitute, broken in fact by the attempt to meet impossible engagements, and completely pauperised, so that of their unaided efforts they could hardly pay a salary to the old re-established hedge-schoolmaster, that such a ssate of things must occur. What statesman having a spark of sympathy with the progress of the day could in bis wildest dreams entertain such a notion as this i Mr. Balfour does well to try and excuse himself, but his excuse is absurd and vain. Again, at a time when the country has been reduced, even to what is for her an exceptional state of distress, the poor-houses are to be emptied and their unfortunate inmates turned adrift to live on the charity of the impoverished people. A brave provision this for famine, produced or aggravated in cold blood and the especial fruits of legislation in the country. Nor is this all ; to add horror to the scene it is not only tha ordinary paupers, bat also the pauper lunatics who are to be sent abroad. Can the imagination picture a more horrible punishment for any people, whatever might be their crime .' Were it related of some o£ the tyrants of the middle age« how black the writers of hißtory would colour the page on which they recorded it — what proof it would seem to afford of the general iniquity of the century in which it had occurred. Yet the proposal comes from the party boasting themselves highest in the most enlightened country in the world — and it is made, notwithstanding Mr. Balfour's senseless excuse, unblushingly and openly, ilf this proposal alone does not inform the English people of what the Tory party are capable, their dulness muit be heavy indeed, and things are less ripe in every respect for salutary changes than has been generally supposed. The clause to which we alluie makes the Irish Land Purchase Bill a wonderful Bill indeed.

The letter of the German Emparor in which ha an imfobtant acquaints the Pope with his project of holding a letter. Labour Conference at Berlin, asks f jr the co-opera-

tion and sympathy of his Holiness, and informs him that he has invited Mgr. Kopp, Prince Bishop of Breslau, to act as his delegate on the occasion, is a very important and suggestive letter, Whether or not, as they say, the German Empeior is of uncertain mind, s j that it is impossible to count on any course of action adopted by him, the evidence thu9 borne to the place filled by the Pope and the homage paid to the influence exercised by him are very notable. This is all the more the case since it is from Germany the testimony comes, so that it may be taken as in some degree expiatory and as the fruits of a bitter experience. Germany had distinguished herself among the countries of the day by her attempt to curtail the influenca of the Pops, or rather to get rid of it altogether. Germany in the past, moreover, had initiated the rebellion of tha people against the Pope. In tais appeal to Home, therefore, made by the German Emperor a very particular significance may be seen. Whatever may ba the points on which the Emperor differs from Prince Bismarck, and it is rumoured that this question of the working classes is one of the chief of then, it is plain that the abandonment of a policy hostile

to Rome is not among them. Bismarck, for his part, had thoroughly repented of his action towards Rome, and had so plainly made his repentance evident that not even his association with Crispi and his promotion of the Triple Alliance had been looked upon at the Vatican as compromising his more recent expressions of friendship towards the Holy See. On this point it is evident the Emperor agrees with the ex-Chancellor and has no intention of departing from the better and more conciliatory attitude adopted by him. Perhaps, it is open to us to doubt as to the perseverence of his Majesty in tbe benevolence of his designs towards the workingmen. We find that people in Europe who have opportunities of forming judgments concerning him, and who are very capable of doing so, have not much confidence in his stability, but look forward with Borne misgivings to the development of his career. Should their provisions, however, prove false, as considering the great issues at stake, it is ardently to be hoped they may, we are justified in believing that the ties which unite the Vatican to Berlin will become still closer. The Geiman Emperor has been taught a lesson in the experiences that preceded his reign as to the danger of opposing Rome, tlis own personal experience, if he takes time to acquire it, will certainly teach him the advantages of a contrary course. In the cooperation and sympathy of the Pope, for which he has wisely applied, he will undoubtedly possess the true means, and the only means of carrying out his benevolent intentions to a successful end. It is nevertheless, to be added that the Pope must have full room for action. Garbed as he is in the exercise of his powers, imperfect results only can be looked for. The labour question, which the Emperor has taken it upon him to solve, is one affecting all the countries of the world, and so affecting them that the condition of things in one country mußt more or less influence that in all the others. The question of Socialism in Germany, for example, cannot be effectually checked while in France or Italy it is encouraged— and in both these countries, as thinga now are, encouragement is given to it. Indeed, the fact that the Emperor summoned the conference alluded to shows that he understood the nature of the case. For Germany he might have acted independently, but independent, isolated, action would be of no avail. A. power acting alike in every country, therefore, but countenanced and assisted by the particular governments, is what is plainly required, and that power is and can be the Papacy alone. The letter of the Emperor to the Pope seems to indicate that his Majesty has already perceived this truth. Should he proceed with the benevolent project he has formed the results of his experience will certainly be his thorough conviction as to the true state of the case, and his full recognition of the necessity that exists for the untrammelled action of the Holy See. Great issues, therefore, may follow from this letter of the German Emperor to the Pope, and its influence on the history of the world may prove momentous.

We conclude in our present issue the reproduction catholic of an excellent paper on the Catholic Press, reid NEWbFAPbKS. at the eongrtss recently held in Baltimore. In this paper is contained a well digested and able Statement of what the province of the Catholic newspaper and the Catholic journalist is. And this, we may add, is a m-itter which should prove particularly ufeful, as both the one and the other are often misunderstood. There are probably few who have ever been engaged in the work cf Catholic journalism who do Dot know of tbe demands occasionally made on the members of the profession to depart altogether fiom the object of their calling, and to produce what must prove anything rather than a newspaper deserving of tbe name of Catholic. The writer of the paper in question bad for his guidance the decrees of a council of the Church on the subject, and, therefore, hy authority as well as by experience and study, he was eminently fitted for the task committed to him, as his work also proved. As to what the writer in question has to say on the matter we may refer our readers to his paper. It is clear ancTcomprehensive, and requires no exphnation nor cemmentfrom us. Our allusion, then, will be confined to the demands that are sometimes made upon the Catholic editor. Sometimes these demands are such as could not under any circumstances be responded to. They would have tbe Catholic nature of the publication compromised, its objects and ends changed, and it's whole purpose destroyed. Ihe Catholic paper, as is pointed out mutt continue in all respects Catholic, must be in all its columns wholesome reading, and cannot pander to any lower taste or objectBome>imee, however, the demands made of the Catholic editor are such as he would be only too glad to comply with, and which it is a constant source of vexation to him that he is unable to supply — even apart from their being made. No one than he is more conscious of the short-comings of his paper, or more desirous of amending them. It iy the means to do so only that fail him, and for that he is not to blame. Dr. Wolff, however, explains the difficulty under which the Catholic editor labours. His short-comings lie at the door of the Catholic public. Among them there is not the feeling there ought to be in favour < f the support of a Catholic paper worthy of the name. Dr. Wolff has pointed out the necessity for this. He also tells ue bern commonly, or indeed bow generally, tbe necessity is die-

regarded. We hope, then, that our readers have pail especial attention to the paper alluded to. It was considered one of the most important, as it was one of the moßt able read at the Baltimore Congress, and we have no doubt that its good effects will be felt by the Catholic Press in the United States. It is, however, applicable to all countries in which there is a Catholic population, and it deserves full consideration in every one of them.