Current Topics AT HOME AND ABROAD.

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XIX, Issue 48, 4 September 1891, Page 1

Current Topics AT HOME AND ABROAD.

THE MOST BEY. DR. GRIMES BISHOP OF OHBISTOHUBCH.

With our present issue we present to out readers a lithographic portrait of the Most Rev. Dr. Grimes Bishop of Christchurch. As our r«adera are aware the Bishop is now on hia return voyage from a visit paid by him to Europe, and is expected to arrive at Auckland by the incoming mail from San Francisco. The good news also has preceded his Lordship that he is returning completely restored to health and vigour, in search of which his voyage to Europe was undertaken. Preparations, meantime, are being busily made in the diocese of Christchurch to give the Bishop a becoming reception. During the time of his residence among them, comparatively short though it was, his people had learned to love and honour Dr. Grimes with no ordinary affection. What Cardinal Manning has recently written of the Blessed Chanel, proto-martyr of the order to which the Bishop belongs, seems also in some degree applicable to his Lordship. <" Making himself all things to all men 1 ; winning them by the heart." It was, therefore, with unfeigned Borrow that the people of the diocese of Christchurch found that their Bishop was obliged through failing health to leave them, though only as they hoped, and, as we see, with reason, for a time. Of che Bishop's visit to Rome we have received some details. We have heard of the kind reception given him by the Holy Father, and the beautiful gift bestowed upon him, as a special mark of esteem and approval. But in the honour shown to the Bishop the flock were included, and additional reason was thus given for turning their s )irow into joy. If then, the people of his diocdse are now exerting themselves to receive their Bishop as becomes a faithful Catholic people, bent oq proving their gratitude t j Almighty God for blessings anl privileges bestowed upon them, it is no more than mi°;ht be looked for. We have long known the people in question, and never once in all thnt time have we found them called upon ia vain for the fulfilment of aoyduy. Their zeal in all good works i 8i 8 well known, and on the present occasion also we are persuaded they w.ll prove true to their well deserved reputation Tbe grounds for their rejoicing and graiitude are manifold. Their beloved Bishop is returning to them bearing with him the marked approbation and benediction of the Holy See and he comes with restored health, giving promise to his people of many years of fatherly care and solicitude, and of a devotion to their best interests of which they have already received an earnest that they fully appreciate.

FAIR BENTS.

We agree with the Member for Egmont that the introduction into the House or a fair rent Bill i B a very desirable thing. Where Native reserves are concerned, indeed, our information is scanty, but, no doubt, Mr McGuire is fully informed. From what ha 8 come under our notice respecting educational leserves, and reasoning from analogy, we can readily believe that, in the case alluded to, also, the need is preesiog With regard to tenants who are exposed to the tender mercies of educational authorities the position is an exceptionally bard one. Jne grievances of tenants have now for B orne years been the topic of the period. We have heard much of the sufferings of Irish peasantfarmers and Scotch Crofters. Not too much, nevertheless, or more than was necessary to form the public opinion whose results have been important, and, indeed, as it would appear, by no means insufficient measures of relief. But the payment of rack-rents has not been hmited to the victims of landlordism in the old country ; nor Qbas the ma,nteiiance of an extravagant and luxurious mode of living been the sole cause of ot pression. New as our own country is, and of !,r 8 , 1 T mg that We ar^ree from, he evif methods one of Ir 8 ,H 6 T Batered iDt ° the 6Oul of "">" than has L TiT or 1B the matter aDy better becauße the ™*y has proceeded from the much vaunted claims of the intellect ot Z fufn° feß8 °™ mi f be f aid hi & B *»™°> the intellectual wants pant* It Bhly Pr ° Vided f ° r ' and ' therefore ' the «»»- panta of reaervea mu fftl t receive no consideration, We do not, of

course, venture to take up the stand of the rank blasphemer or in any degree to oppose the claims of high education. Learned professors, no doubt, have every right to the emoluments that their learning and abilities merit, and ail we can wish is that they may find a more extended sphere for the exercise of their useful qualities, with proportionate results. What we would venture to suggest is that usurious practices cannot be justified even by the claims of the intellect, and that circumstances may render the payment of a learned professor's salary quite as iniquitous as that, for example, of the jointure of an aristocratic dowager. So far as justice and fair play are concerned, it matters little whether the oppressed tenant be an Irish tenant, a Scotch crofter, or a New Zealand leaseholder. Mr McGuire, therefore, in moving in the matter—aß we find he did from Hansurd of August s—was5 — was not acting without reason. It is to be hoped that the consideration the Minister of Lands promised to give to the question may prove favourable.

A TAIN ATTEMPr

People cannot be made moral by Act of Parliament. If we had Dot known that before we should have learned it from the debate on the Gaming and Lotteries Bill, as given in Hansard of July 30. It would almost seem, in the case in question, that, on the contrary, an Act of Parliament can make people immoral. Surely the morality of people who. being forbidden to gamble at home, go beyond the borders of the colony and risk their money among strangers, must appear, to their neighbours at least, very questionable. Bat that is what we are told people in New Zealand have been doing. It is penal, for example, to hold consulta'ions in New Zealand, but they are held with impunity in the Australian colonies, and people in New Zealand forward their money there to be so invested. Tbe Member for Waitotara tells us, on what he considers fair authority, that from November 1885 to November 1889, upwards of £260,000 had been remitted from New Zealand and only about £57,200 returned in prizes. So far, moreover, ns our own testimony is of any value, we can corroborate the presumption of tbe hon Member to the effect that consultation circulars were generally distributed throughout the colony. The last mail from New South Wales, in fact, brought ns, to a private addres-, two— a yellow one and a pink one, the one offering a first prize of £10,000 and the other a first prize of £8000. We do not mention any further particulars for, apart from all other considerations, we do not see why we tbould give any capitalist, especially any foreign capitalist, even if we were sure he was an honest man, an advertisement all for nothing. That statement, however, of Mr Hutchison's, that £57,200 had come back to the colony by way of prizes has, we confess, had rather an encouraging effect on us. Otherwise, we were inclined to believe that no one who sent a pound away for such a purpose ever saw as much as six-pence in return. It would, meantime, appear from the impeachment of Mr Hutchison and the admissions of Captain Russell that the Gaming and Lotteries Act, as it at present exists, is pretty much of the nature of a humbug. It has been found impossible to enforce its provisions, and gambling goes on hard and fast in spite of it. In particular.it has, to all intents and purposes, been pasfed in the interests of men in the other colonies, whose c supported by money from New Zealand, must prove highly lucrative to them. Mr Hutchison's argument seems much to the point. "If Parliament were powerless to prevent such thiogs, and he believed it was, then Parliament had better accept the fact, try to make the best of it and keep the money in the colony." People, as we have said, cannot be made moral by Act of Parliament, and it seems somewhat unwise to pay dearly for a vain attemDt.

A FOOLISH MEASURe,

Why can we not have erne simple land Act suffl. cient to satisfy everyone and to make it plain to people desirous of settling in New Zealand tbat the way lies open to them 1 If there was one thing more than another for which hope was based on the Government now in office, it whs that their dealing with the land would be such as to provide for all reasonable wants, and^to make the rapid advancement of the colony certain. In this principal point of all they have failed ; they have given us a measure full of intricacies and difficulties, that it takes a good deal of study to understand, and which, when an understanding of it is at length attained to, is calculated to do

an j thing rather than to reassaie or satisfy. Bat this comes of following the whims of men who are fall of fads and fancies, who, at beat, are bent npon entering at once upon a line of progress that if eTer it cornea into useful play at all, can only do so aa part of the policy of a distant future. What is to« gtoi of trying to make the country forge ahead of iho age. and take the lead in a path that do Other country will follow, and whos^ immediate end must be disaster ? And this is to put the matter as prettily as we can. We are supposing for tte sako of argument, and not to deal too hardly with the politicians or philosophers concerned, that progress is what they keep in view. Were we, however, to make use of the word " retrogression " instead we 3hould not be far out in our calculations. We have in fact, another meeting of extremes, and, to all intent ■ and purposes, our nationalises of the land are 8t one with our monopolists. The object of the old policy was to keep the lands a desert uutil a chosen few could make their full profit of them, and the new policy tendß to nothing better. Indeed its effect may probably be worse, for, after all, the monopolists did make iome use of their acres, and in some measure may be given credit for promoting the interests of the country— perhaps as well, on the whole, as the circumstances of the times permitted. The new politicians, on the other hand, will bum up the holdings of the monopolists, will throw these holdings out even of such useful occupation as is made of them, and will do nothing towards placing them in better hands. Where, in fact, are the people to come from who are to take up these new-fashior ed leaseholds with all the risks attendant on them ? Do our men in power really believe that they are going to empty the towns, and that all the spouters and all the savants of the pavi, with their original views of political economy, imbibed from a study of Mr Henry George or Mr Bellamy, or from the lucubrations of Sir Robert Stout and the poking-fun-at-'em of Bir George Grey, are dying to rush out upon the lea and fallow, and to handle the plough and the flail— even if it be only in the lazier way of tending the fir«s of a steam-engine? If they do, they are vastly mistaken. These men are not thinking of themselves at all — that is, in connection with making a garden of the wilderness. They are thinking of people from somewhere else — the babies of ihe future most probably. But catch them or any of their following becoming settlers on the land. The towns will remain as they are, or rather they will increase, for such is the general tendency of the day, The townsmen, too, will remain as they are, they will be politicians, or philosophers, for somebody else. They will send their children to school with the intention of making them teachers or clerks, or members of the learned professions. But with the hard work of the country settler they will have nothing to do. If they would, rest assured they would see the matter wi*h different eyes. The philosophy, the political economy that would come home to the<n then would be quite of a different kind, and they would want an assurance that the fruits of their labour should be sufficient and fully tneir own, and that their tenure should be secure and permanent. Let them do to olhers, then, as they would be done by. Let them insist on having such an Act passed for the settlement of the lands as may promise security and make settlement easy for people who are really desirous of settling, that iB, for the most part, for immigrants from other countries. And even for their own benefit this is necessary. After all, unless the country is settled and makes favourable progress, the towns cannot thrive. They depend upon the country, and must stand or fall with it. Away, then, we Bay, with fads and fancies. Very interesting to read, no doubt, are the fallacies of Mr Henry George, or the visions of Mr Bellamy ; very amusing to listen to are the lucubrations of Sir Robert Stout ; and as good as a farce any day is the poking-fu:,-a!-'em of Sir George Grey. But all this is mere intellectual pastime, and cannot be permitted to have weight, especially when there is an urgent question of bread and butter. What we want is bread and butter now, not plum-cake for the future, or whipped cream to mix in the pap of the coming babies. We want common sense and plain useful measures, in fact, and, above all, we want such a Land Act as may go away with the abuses of the past, and may not replace them, aa the Governmen' measure of the day does, by still graver abuses for the future. What is there, we ask again, to prevent the passing of such an Act 1

CBAZY PUNCTILIOUSNESS.

Which is the more thin-skinned of the two, the Premier, who canuot Btand being told that he ought to be ashamed of himself, or the hon. Member who caDnot hold up his head under the censure of the flousa for telling him so. It is hard to say, and, notwithstanding the fuss the affair has made at Wellington, we doubt if the matter is of much importance. What iB of some importancp, however, is to Bee the time of our Parliament wasted on such trivial disputes. Mr. Bryce tells Mr. Ballanca that be ou^bt to be ashamed of himself— with an explanatory and exculpatory clause, he declares. Mr. Ballance has Mr. Bryce censured, betraying, it must be owned, a nice sentiment of honour, but hardly acting with any remaikable degree of common sense. And yet one might think there was plenty for the House to do, besides delaying to decide upon such points of

politeness. Bat really the matter ia hardly deserving of notice. We do not know even that the illustration it gives us of Mr. Bryce'a temper raises it to a higher standing placa. But does not an hon. Member who with so trifling an excuse resigns his seit appear to set but a slight value on his services to his constituents ? Let us do Mr. Bryce all the justice in our power. He is not oaly a man of extremjj i sensitiveness, but his modesty is also most remarkable. To retire from Parliameut owing to having incurred the censare of the House for nothing— for really the form of expression employed by the hon. Member is much too common, and of too excusable a kind to be looked upon as anything at all— would betray a very reprehensible degree of sulkiness, if it did not arise from the modest belief of the Member concerned that his presence in the House could be of no possible consequence to any ona. The whole affair, in fact, appears to be a case of " much ado about nothing,"— and all that remains for any sensible man is to wish Mr Bryce a kiodly farewell, and to hope that Mr. Ballance may in future prove less touchy.