Current Topics AT HOME AND ABROAD.

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XX, Issue 24, 1 April 1892, Page 1

Current Topics AT HOME AND ABROAD.

We do not know that Sir Charles Gtvan Duffy's 818 CHABLHB article in the Contemporary Review will have the OAVAN duff? effect that he desires, or will, in fact, persuade the ON CA.BLYL*. Irish people that Carlyle was a lover of their country.

Cailvte, indeed, in his letters writes as mildly as a sockieg dove. So nib truces, however, of the rugged denouncer of wrongs, ac he believed them to be, and of the fierce champion of a " tree thing," aa be saw it, we still fiad in these letters. But they fally justified tha young gentleman who received them in his belief that Mr Carlyle was a remarkably nics person, and they mide it evident— this, perhaps, being the chief point about their publication — that Mr Carlyle looked upon Mr Duiiy, and doubtless with complete justice, as a very superior yoang man. In those portions of the Nation for which Mr Duffy was personally responsible, Mr Carlyle was deeply interested — bat as for the rest, the less said about it perhaps the better. Mr Mitchell, we must, however, add, was another exception to the general rule, an>i for him also Mr Carlyle expiessed exceptional love, Hr Mitchell, it may be pertinent to recall, bad certain inconsistencies in his character. Ec, for eximple, at the time of the civil war in America, expressed himself as a strong advocate of slavery. Some bond of sympathy, therefore, more or less latent, may have existed between him and Mr Carlyle But how was the particular love of Mr Carlyle for Ireland shown ? Doubtless he expressed a wish for the amelioration of ber condition, not by a system of self-government, not by the success of the movement of 1848, but by her deliverance, in some way not clearly explained, out of the hands of the devil, in which, as opposed to the English Government, he roundly asserted her to be — allu ling, perhaps, also to the Popery of her— not that we would dream of attempting to imitate a style possible only to one man, and nieding his originality and genius to make it endurable. We cannot say we think these letters have been becomingly published by Sir Charles Gavaa Duffy personally. The task might devolve more gracefully o.i some one who succeeded him. We do not even know that the humility with which Sir Charles quotes Mrs Carlyle's description of hie pera nal appearance completely excuses him, but, indeeJ, so far a 9 we have any experience of that lady's writings, she appears to us as consciously a very clever woman, always on the tip-toe of an at'empt to say something fine or Btriking — and not quite incapable of "gush." Sir Charles Duffy thinks that the harm of Mr Carlyle's notes on his Irish toar that were publisbpd, consisted in their publication. We are not sure I hat Sir Charles' exhibition of Mr Carlyle in a better humour will neutralise their effect. Doubtless if we know nothing of hew our friends back-bite us, we are not annoyed or mortified, but if we do know it, with the annoyance and mortification, there comes to us a better understanding of our friends. We fear our better understanding of Mr Carlyle had prtcsded that with which Sir Charles Duffy would now inspire us. It is hardly possible for us tore. urn upon our sups. Some of the letteis published are tiivial and insignificant, or, rather, would be so, if it were not of int< reat to learn of every stir given by so famous a man — even of tne places in which he hhd laid down bis hat or his umbrella. Others of these letters, paibaps, might, with a more refined taste, have been in some resptctß cutshort, or partially suppressed. Tbe paspages, for instance, in which allusion is made to members of Sir Charles' family are of such a kind — and yet it would be a pity to lose expressions contained in these passages, which are peculiarly distiuciive of Carlyle. A " beautiful lady," in Carlyle'e senso of the words was not merely one of outward charms as ordinary people understand her to be. The first Lady Duffy, nevertheless, to whom the expression 19 applied, was a lady of much elegance and grace. The 'erms, however, take a more comprehensive and a higher meaning. Ibis is tbe case very maikedly with regard Ito another lady so described. To the late Mrs Oallan.the lady spoken ii, Sir Charles Duffy, in a note, pays a wil -deserved tribute. The iettets to wkich we more particularly allude, are those containing assages relating to O'Connell. Barely Irish patriotism would seem

more respectable in. the present and more promising for the future if in the past some of its chief devo'ees bad been less jealous or less distrustful of each other. Coming from Mr Carlyle alone these passages would not be exceptionable ; given to t^ world by Sir Charles Gavan. Duffy, and following up denunciations made in bis " Young Ireland," they seem ext invidious. But if Carlyle and Duff / have rightly judged o'^ «.„ their judgment does credit to the dissern-tient of men who made n pretensions to the genius of Carlyle ani who had not the opportar ties for personally becoming acquainted with O'Conuell's character that Sir Charles Duffy posseFse 1. We ha' written" enjoyed," but we retract the word. The present writer received bis early impressions of O'Connell from one who had been a personal friend of D'Esterre, and to whom, therefore, every 1 hing connected with O'Connell was naturally repulsive. The person alluded to, further, owned a f ragmant of a letter written by the victor after the duel and in which that fatal event was lightlyspokenof, and this seemed to justify the feeling of reprTsion. We believe as a m itter of fact th it O'Oonnell wa9 deeply penitent, and the circumstaDcea under wh.ch tbg letter in question had been written were they known, would in all probability have explained its toue, Tbe fragment, we may add, was pub isheJ aom a , thirty or thirty-fi^e years ago in " Bentley's Magazine ," a London periodical which, if we recollect aright, baa Ion.? since b^eo. defunc Tae familiar ring of these denunciations mule by S r Charles Duffy aud through him by Carlyle is particularly suggestive to us. We cannot think, hjwever, that to throw doubt on toe sincerity of oae who has be^n commonly regarded as a prince aming liish patriots, at a tinn when Irish patriotism U in the throes of a preeario is struggle, ia an act of wisdom in one desirous of seeing the struggle victoruus. Nor, indeed, do we think that the publication of these letters at this particular season is to be commenied. Whit was th? re isoa for this publication 1 Mjtive s of delic »cy m'ght be suppled of ihennelves to delay it. There was no particular end t) bj serve! just now by changing the minds of Irishmen with regard to Carlyle— even if it were possible to do so. The Lask might well await another day. Carlyle expresses himself as hostile to II jotj R lie, as believing the very face of nature hostile to it. He orotesH against the possibility of Irelaad'a ever being a nation — or tv<:r at y lung moie so thai a district or pariah of Great Britain. If all this has a.iy effect at all, it must evidently be an adverse effect oo thu nation U raovemeat of thd day. Thera is nothing of any very gre.t or presiiny: interest ia theia letters. They show us that Mr Carlyle c mid speak, with hu stamping and swearing, of Iristi affiirs — that there actually were moods in which he would not tquelch the Irish people •' like a rat," even if they did prove themselves a littlw rebellious. They show ua that he had a very high opinun of Mr Duffy, ani formed a very pleasant travelling companion for 'hit gentleman on a tour in Ireland, But for all tLi3 we could etili b-t ye Wai ed some yeari — even a good jaany — without much privation. Iv : opinions giv^n by Mr Carlyle of scma of the Biiush poets and their works are, indeed, well worth reading, a'thou^h by sone of tbem.Jparticularly that relating to Coleridge, we are reminded of certain v■» pi wit nesses — also reg-irded by some people as unpleasant only tjecm-n of tbeir public itijn — vvhich somewhat morlifiid the admirers of ihe deceased sags when Mr Froude gave them likewise to the woild. Was it, by chance, in some degree owiog to Mr Duffy's tact in dr*v?in^ him out and keeping him busy talking about olber things llun those liish ooes immediately suiroandingb;m, that Mr Carlyle proved himself so amiable and kindly a travelling companion / We fc^r Mr Carlyle had too much dissembled his love in public to admit of our receiving with any great ardour a demonstration made ot it by him in private— more particularly to a select one or two whom he evidently regarded aa exceptional people. Tin' article, no doubt is entertaining and curious. Any influence it may exercise seems likely to b ■ ia a direction contrary to that desired by Sir Chai lea Gavan Dulfy.

A COURTEOUS LISTTEB.

The following letter explains itself: — ' Dunedia March 23, lb'Ji. — Tae &hn r of the Tablet, Duatdin, — !mi, — 1 bave to ackuowledge receipt of the copy of y.ur paper forwarded by you, aud have to th.nk jou for the same. I wr.ie this not.* not fur the purpose of enttung 011 a controvcrby with you, but so that it may not be said tha

I treated your forwarding the copy of your paper to me with discourtesy. Ido not find anything in your articles showing that the figures I gave as to the criminality of New Zealand have been attempted io be disputed. I was dealing with statistics that can easily be verified, Lamely, as to the religions f thr of New Zealand I did not enter on the wider question of how fr.r morality requires its basis to be that * Cuiia ianity. I was meting the staiement that crime bad ini eased rince our pubic school system came into force. The figures quoted co .clusively proved that our crime has lessened by nearly ue-balf. That is sufficient to meet the oft-repeated statement that Btcular schools inevitably lead to crime. If my fijures can be met I sh^ll be only too glaJ o discuss them with you. You, however, invite me to enter on the larger question — whether there can be sound morality without religion. That would require considerable debate, and I have not the time at present to enter on that controversy even were I certain that such a controversy would do any good in yonr columns. Our standpoints are entirely different. You believe that you have an infallible Church, whose word on faith and morals you must obey. I recognise no such infallible authority, and, starting from such different premises, it seems to me almost beating the air to begin any controversy. This, however, I affirm, and, if necessary, I can show by statistics — that the countries that are most Catholic in the world ara no better from a criminal statistical puint of view than countries most Protestant or the most secular. If yon compare Italy or Austria with Scandinavia or Spain with Scotland you will find that my statement is correc'. In making such a statement Ido not mean to say tbat religion leads to crime, all I affirm is tbat religious teaching does not necessarily l"ad to the absecceof crime. You have stated that education does not cause crime to cease, and tbat crime may vary, that jb, thit educate 1 men may commit crimes of a different character to those comnuut d by the uopducited, but still they are crimes. I quite admit that, I recognise that there are many causes for crime just as there aie marjy things that tend to remove crime. I have written this simply out of courtesy to you, not expecting, however, tbat on either philosophical or political questions we can be found at one. I may just add tbat I have read works not only of English, but of many foreign writers, dealing with this subject, and some of them belong to your own Cburoh. — I am, etc., Robert STOUT."

OUR REPLY.

We are happy to ackcowledge the courtesy of the reply with which Sir Robert Stout ha 9 honoured us. We, nevertheless, regret Sir Robert's adherence to bare figures, by which he bases bia conclusions rather on shadows than on substance. If we recollect aright, the charge Bgainst secularism include.! immora Hy as well as crime, and testimo y to its rank existence m he colony is abundant, although it does not enter into the statistics. A plain liaw in the argumfnt derived by fc?ir R >bert S.out from his figures is, howe er, this. During the fire years quoted by him. Catholic prisoners gain nothing in proportion, but rather diminish, an effect that cannot be attributed to the iDfluer cc of the secular schools, which Catholicsdo not frequent. It 19 legitimate to conclude, tbeiefure, that secularism has not beea otherwise the factor in tne diminution nf crime. We may alsi remark in passing, that the excess in minor offancei is shown by Catholic prisoners, which proves that the number of criminals amoog the Catholic body is comparatively less, m nor ofitnees being commonly commuted over and o?er again by the sime individual, and the statis ice being based on convictions. We Lave already, on more than one occasion, pointed out the preposterous unfairness of comparing a people heavily handicapped with people tjaving every cncumstance in their favour ; but this is what is done wiien Irish colomsts are accredited with an excess of ciime. i'adiij , wivhout su pence in bis pe'etor a friend in the couatry, is compared with tSir Kobert btout himself. TLe Catholic and non-Cahouc htand-points of judgment witn regard to crime are certainly, as Sir Robert claims, very different. Into the Catholic list, determined as Sir Robert rightly states by the infallible authority of the Church in faith and morals, there enter, for example, adultery and suicide. The facilities for divorce in Protestant countries testify to the toleration thereof the one, and the other forms a subject of applause and encouragement to eminent Freethuking writers Neither enters into the statistics of crime. We have not, within immediate reach, particulars respecting Italy, as compared with Scandinavia, but in bis comparison of Span and Scotland. according to Mr William Douglas Morrison, Sir Robert Stoat errs, «t least in one particular. Tbo writer we alluae to states that the ciime of theft is four times muie common among the Sco'ch than among the Spaniards. Italy, we may add, can hardly now be regarded as a purely Catholic nation. The presec.cj there of a revolutionary and Socialistic mob effectually prevents that. As much also may be said ef Austria. To the admirable character of the Italian peasant, who remains Catholic, we have such impartial testimony as that, for example, of " Ouida." The Saturday Review, again, when the late M. Paul Bert, some yearn ago, attacked the Jesuits in France, testified strongly to the virtue of the purely Catholic society in that country. Crime, nevertheless, has increased there during the laat 59

years by IS3 per cent Bat, while we condemn the appeal to bam figarea in another, we most not ourselves make use of it. It ii certainly ace >rding to charity that when people cannot agree they should, at least, agree to differ. This, we think, Sir Robert Stout will, however, Bdm it they should do on equal terms. How it is possible to do so while the one continues to enforce his philosophical and political o; inion9 at the expense of the other, it ia not very easy •■> explain. But this is what, to all intents and purposes. Sir Robert Stout, by continuing to insist on extorting from Catholics money for the support of the secular schools, is accountable for. In conclusion, we would respectfully suggest that Sir Robert Stout should add to hie extensive and intelligent studies that of some sound works on the rendering of equal justice. We do not, of course, mean justice according to law ia which we are well aware Sir Robert needs no instruction. The works alluded to will hardly be found by him to include among their recommendations the quoting of illusory figures for the perpetuation of oppression.

LUNACY OB GENIUS f

Oh yes, to be sure. So kind of him ; so thought* ful ; bo like that dear good old soul. There oar contemporary the Donedio Evening Star bat for tbe last fortnight or three weeks been making a perfeot geyser of himself to spout out tbe feculent mad of the Orange ditch. Now he discovers that, to quote his words, a " personal antagonism between sects whose true interest is to live iD toleration and harmony with each other," is likely to be tbe result. Well done, Pecksniff. Try it again, old man. We all know you don't like the odium theologicum— not a bit of you. But, after all, that quotation from H. N. Moseley, M.A., F.R.S., Fellow of Exeter College, Oxford, was enough to cap the climax. Farther than that, it really would be difficult to go. What we want to know, meantime, is where now is Moseley? In the padded room of some highly respectable private lunatic asylum? In somt sequestered refuge for idiots? Or is he merely still engaged in tbe pursuits of science, with his ordinary bead stuck up in the moon, or away in a fog-bank, or somewhere else out of reach of the common perceptions and experiences of daily life? Tbe most creditable way of explaining the matter, wbera Moaeley is concerned, is to Buppose that, the middies, or other pickles, on board ship knowing, as we ourselves from other sources know of them, of his anti-Popish proclivities and taking advantage of bis scientific simplicity, thought it a good joke on their return from a day or two on shore to " cram " him with the amazing stuff, which as we are informed by a correspondent of tbe Stmr, he has gravely set forth in bis book—" Notes by a Naturalist on the Challenger,' p 414. We do not know the book ; it ib not to ba found in tbe Atbecasum ; and we are certainly not going to lay out some shillings and perhaps a sixpence, on purchasing it. After ail, we should not be surprised to find that this correspondent had been entertaining himself by hoaxing the livening Star and his readers. But here is the passage quoted from this book, or asserted to be to quoted " Papal indulgences fjr sins and even crimes are still sold in the Phi ippines by tbe Government at their offices all over the country at the same counters witti tobacco, brandy, and lottery tickets and other articles, of which the Government retain the monopoly. The perpetual right to sell indulgences in Spain and its cjlonies «ra9 granted to the Bpanisn Crown by tbe Pjpe in 1750 In 1844-45 the Givernment received from this sjurce of revenue upwards of £58,000.' Well, perhaps, there is nothing like going the " whole hog " when you go it at all— aoii the whole hog the writer of this passage most certainly has gone. It is prodigious beyond all imagination. Verily it was time for our contemporary the Evening Star to remember those words of a congenial poet — "Let dogs delight to bark and bite," and to bring matters to a conclusion. The odium theologicum bade fair to become a little ridiculous Oar contemporary acied with prudence as welt as with charity and kindness.

THOSE DOS KEYS.

Wht, here ia our " Civis " braying; a po»an over the victory won in the Evening Star by those liners of the Orange ditch. Who would have expected to find our festive friend reversing the old fable of the ass in the lion's skin, and appearing ia all the visible glory of long ears ? Or is it himself that is ia it at all ? Had be not kindly leot a corner for the occasion to oblige another donkey 1 We are told our " Civis," unlike the Daily Times, in which, nevertheless, hia note appears, but which published one of the most ill-humoured and intolerant leaders that has been written on the subject, can listen with good-humoured tolerance to Dr Mor&n's Philippics against the Educa'ion Act. And let u« mark the exquisite taste with which the Bishop is nicknamed " His Eminence of St Joseph's." Thia is, indeed, evidence of a sharpness that may well have b^en begotten by a diet of thistlethorns. As to that good-hum )ured tolerance, we doubt of its existence. Such a quality is not a characteristic of the Orange ditch. Even the innocuous pop-gun of our " Civis," if it be carried there, mast change its tune. The mud to bn diicharged by it must go iff with a more spiteful fizzle. And s> our friend is quite proud of that

bit of Latin. Behold, again, th« elation begotten of feeding on old Scotia's boastful weed. The Bishop, seeing a glaring error of translation in a passage gi?en as the English of a certain Ball, asked for the original Latin, asked also for the name of the assumed translator. Because, 70a know, there was a risk of his being pot to trouble all for nothing. If that person— we always remember Oarlyle's schoolmaster—was that fatuons person the dance, as there seemed good reason to believe he was, the Bishop would lose his time. The dunce could not possibly be taught or brought by any means to perceiTe the force of a correction. The revelation of the name, therefore, was necessary. Oar dunces we all know by name because, being dunces, they will occasionally betray themselves in public, and cannot be got to bold their tongues. But what was the answer giveu to the Bishop ? Why, a piece of Latin picked up at random somewhere else, ill spelled out, or misprinted, and evidently completely misunderstood by the anonymous icribe— still evidently a dunce— who had laboriously copied it letter by letter. Did our dunce really know that, as a rule, the Pope's Bulls are written in Latin, or had he not quoted from his controversial manual with the implicit belief that Her Majesty's English was the original tongue ? Perhaps he thought one piece of gibberish was the same as another, and that, therefore, he might borrow his Latin indifferently. We have, for example, heard the servants in the house with a French maid declare she could not possibly herself understand what she said. It was all one to them. — Our dunce, we may add, knows history sufficiently to •wallow without suspicion any whopper the historian places before him? Is it not written in a book? Surely that is enough for him. To question a writer's truth requires some modicum of intelligence. Oor " Civis " tells us that the Bishop bad dangling at hiß belt the bleached scalp of a Presbyterian divine. But a Presbyterian divine had a certain right to make a mistake. He was actually under the belief that he had studied Latin sufficiently to interpret it. People who, like these correspondents, had never seen the back of a Latin grammar, unless in a bookseller's window, should know their own qualifications and show themselves less " cheeky." Modesty, of course, we do not expect from such men, but really they should try to refrain from " cheek." Necessarily the Bishop had taken no further notice of these people. Why should he expose himself to be pelted from behind the Orange ditch with mud while he was attempting to teach the unteachable ? Our " Civis " brags on such slight grounds that be and these comrades of his have recaptured the scalp alluded to. Let them, then, have a wig made of it to cover their baldness. Scanty an article as it is, all their noddles may fit in it— and all their brains may repose conceitedly beneath its ehelter. We admit, in conclusion, that the donkey is a very interesting animal. If our " Civis," in devout admiration of him, or with a warm fellow-feeling and vivid sense of brotherhood, goes the length of letting loose his bray in a corner especially devot9d to his own tuneful piping, that is his aflair, not our 3. We wish him joy of the hee-haw.

A WORD OV HNCOUBAQEMENT.

Thebe now, be good. You know you are going to do nothing of the kind. You're bad enough we know, but yon are not so bad as you try to make out. That warniog they are giving us about opposing us by a block vote, is, of course, a mere childish threat. They will never do anything of the sort. Even if Dr Moran's confidence in the good-will and the sense of fair play existing among our non-Catholic fellow colonists prove baseless, there are other considerations on which wt may rely. What ! copy the bad example of those Papists, and because the benighted beings pursue a wrongheaded and head-strong course, take up the same tactics — merely to chastise them 1 Why we should have the enlightened majority who bo conducted themselves, sending off next to the green-grocer or the tobacconist to buy four- penes or six-pence worth of an indulgence to commit some dreadful sin. If they are going to copy the example of the Papists in one flagrant instance, why should they not follow it, M thty understand it, in another 7 Bat only think of the encouragement they give us, and of the way in which they cancel their condemnation of us. They could not possibly propose to follow our example, if they really believed it to be a bad or injurious one. What, sacrifice all the interests of the Colony, and themselves act like "half-crazy faddists"! The people who make the proposal alluded to are filled with admiiation of us, and, in their secret hearts, believe we are doing just what we ought to do, what they would do themselves if it were possible for them. But we are not a bit afraid. The threat to inflict an impossible punishment is a childish one— above •11, it proves to us, as we have shown, that the people who make it think we are doing quite right, and with every probability of success.

BUT what are we talking about 1 Our friends send out to bay indulgences ? Why, they have them at home «nd all for nothing, of a kind, too, of which the Catholic Church is completely destitute. If

WITHOUT MONEY AMD wrTwnrrT nDirn

all they tell us of the Catholic Church were true, instead of being, as it is, a most prodigious whopper, Catholics still would have a little trouble to encounter. They would have to pay

some money here — the prices vary ; some of our Evangelical friends state them as rather high, but others make them very low— and they would have to endure purgatory hereafter. But our Evangelical f lends really enjoy all these privileges scot-free. The converted man is free from sin. That does not mean that he ceases to commit sin. This be can never do. On the contrary, a constant habit of Binning remains inevitably with him ; but bis si a is pardoned— past, present) and future. Some Evangelists have declared that there should be no sorrow for sin, because it has been pardoned beforehand. We can understand, for example, the sanctimonious manner in which that shining light of Orangeism, Mr De Cobain, recently met the filthy accusation brought against him, and since taken as proved. There was no need for his repentance. Mr Da Cobain was one of the Lord's elect, and could not fall from grace. He was endowed, like every one in the same condition, with a perpetual and plenary indulgence and pardon without money and without price. So muih was included in Luther's Pecca fortiter ; so much was put in practice openly and notably when Luther and bis colleagues gave, over their own signature, a written licence to Philip of Hesse to take a second wife, his first being still alive. Philip might die in peace, unshrived, and go, not to purgatory, but straight into heaven with both these ladies, if they would peaceably suffer each other's presence, standing, at the side of hiß bed. Why, then, should they talk of those Catholics in the Philippines. Evangelicals everywhere have more than twice their privileges. We do not say that Evangelicals anywhere, as a rule, avail themselves of these privileges, la fact, we are aware that, as a rule, they do nothing of the kind. Bat that is because the people are better than, their creed, and cinnot act logically in accordance with it, and in a manner their right feeling and common sense teach them to be monstrous. In exceptional cases they certainly do so act. Cromwell, on his death-bed, quieted his conscience by recalling his privileges as ooe of the elect, and William the Silent availed himself of them in a manner similar to that conceded by authority to Philip of Hesse. It is quite unnecessary, therefore, that the green-grocer or tha tobacconist should be licensed to sell pardons to our Evangelical friends. Every man-Jack of them has a full stock always iv his possession, and can make use of them whenever it pleases him. All that is necessary for him, in order to do so, is that he should accommodate his conscience to the full provisions and logical consequences of his religious creed.

A CORRECTION,

Rather a bad typographical error occurred last week in one of our articles. Owing to the hurry caused by the holiday, it escaped detection both in proof and revise. In the right-hand column of page 5, line 10, for <( ,the rank nature of the language " read " the frank nature of bis language." The difference of signification is very obvious and of some importance. But aa to that lunatic charge brought against the IRBEPBESSIBLE. Catholic Cburcti of selling indulgences to commit Bin and crime, as if any man in his senses could believe such a thing consistent— to speak of nothing else — with the civilisation prevailing in Catholic countries, it is time-honoured. Dc Milner traces it back particularly to one Friar Egan, a fore-ruoner of the interesting Chiniquy, and other rascals, who, in our own time, have turned their apostasy to a profitable account. Egan came over from Ireland to England some time in the seventeenth century, and seems to have made some money there. He did not turn out satisfactory, however, and it was reported that he had gone back to spend his ill-gotten gains on himself purchasing forgiveness for what he had done. Dr Newman, in one of his workß, deals at some length with the subject, alluding to what he calls the " Great Protestant Tradition." He quotes a passage from the Times, and takes it as his text. "It is the practice, as our readers are aware, in Roman Catholic countries," said the Times in Jane, 1851, " for the clergy to post up a list of all the crimes to which bum>m frailty can be tempted, placing opposite the exact sum of money for which their perpetration will be indulged." lato the explanation given by Newman, we need not enter, Our readers know enough of the Christian doctrine to apprehend its substance. We may, nevertheless, quote a case given in illustration, and which, we may add, was published as follows in the Evening Star, in reply to tbe letter quoting Mr Moseley's book :—: — " The case is that of a Protestant clergyman who, at tho time of the 1 Popish aggression,' testified at a public meeting in England that, on paying a visit to Brussels io the year 1835, he had found affixed to the door of the Cathedral of St Gudule'a a catalogue of sins, with a specification of the prices at which remission of each might be obtained. ' The good Belgians,' writes Newman, ' were surprised and indignant at what they thought no sane man would have ventured to advance.' The result was a declaration signed by the Dean of Brussels, his four assistant clergymen, the church wardena, the judge of the High Court of Justice, two other judges, and others : — ' The undersigned look upon it as a duty to come lorward and protest against the allegations of the ' clergyman in question,' They declare upon their honour that euch a notice as tbe one spoken of by the said

clergyman has never disgraced tbe entrance either of the Charcb of 8t Gradule or of any other church of Brussels or of tbe whole country. They further declare that they have never even suspected for one instant that permission to sin could, for any possible motive, be granted, nor tbtt anyone could ever obtain remission of his sins for mooty. Such a doctrine they repudiate with indignation, as it is and always has been repudiated by the whole of the Catholic Churcb. ' This declaration is signed Brussels, April 2, 1861.' (Lectures on Catholicism in England, pp. 105-6)." "The exposure," s.yn Newman in conclusion, ' ' happened in March acd April ; but Protestantism is infallible, and the judgment uf its doctors irreversible ; accordingly in tbe following Jane, the newspaper I have mentioned thought it necessary to show thst the Tradition was not injured by tbe blow ; so out came the Tradition again, ' though brayed in a mortar,' not at all tbe worse for the accident, in that emphatic statement which I quoted when I opened the subject." Nor have we the slightest expectation that the " Tradition " has been siltneed in Dunedin. Nay. had not the Evening Star charitably, as we have seen , and with a timely abhorrence of the odivn theologieum, concluded the correspondence on the publication of this reply to the quotations from Moseley, it wonld, no doubt, be still publicly asserting itself, Bat wait awhile. W« shall have it all over again on the first opportunity. Whatever may be tb« conclusions of evolution, we may remark by way of a concludicg postscript, in oar time the bray of tbe donkey for instance, has not altered in tbe least.

A COBIOUB CONSIDERATION

Thkbi ia one disadvantage— we speak under correction—at which from her very position the r. Cbnrch seems to be placed in dealing with nonCatholic people. She makes her statements on her own authority, and knows of no higher tribnnal to which she may appeal. If they contradict her, she can but point to her own decisions and her own doctrine as the role by which she requires them to judge — and, if they cannot understand or will not accept these, she can do no more. Compare these accusations respecting pardons and indulgences brought by rabid Evangelical and Freethinkers against the Church, with some, for example, constantly brought against the Jews. The Jews, from time immemorial and np to the present moment, have been and are continually accused of killing Christians, particularly Christian children, to use their blood in certain of tbeir ceremonies. When they deny the charge, passages from their sacred books are produced, in which unlearned and incompetent people fiod irrefutable proof of the truth of the charge. MoreoTer, murders hare undeniably been committed by Jews and hare been ascribed to such motives. A very notable murder of a Franciscan missionary, for instance, took place some years ago in Damascus, the late M. Crtmieux being charged with defending the murderers out of religions sympathy with them. A couple of years since, again, a little boy was murdered, under very piteous circumstances, in the same town, and Jews undoubtedly were the criminals. No cause for the crime being assigned, in either case, it was concluded that it was doe to the religious requirements alluded to. The Jews, however, besides their protests, and the explanation of their true doctrine, had a tribunal to appeal to — they appealed to the Pope, or to prelates of the Church. By the command of the Sovereign Pontiff their case has been more than once inquired into— the last time by Cardina Oanganelli, afterwards Pope Clement XIV. — and on such authority they have been pronounced completely innocent. In our own days, we have heard the late Cardinal Manning pronounce strongly in tbeir favour. For a Catholic to believe the accusation in question, therefore, would be an act on his part of presumption and disobedience. Whether the Jews acknowledge the services thus lendertd them by denouncing in tbeir turn gross charges brought against the Catholic Church — or whether, in some instances, they lend their aid to the promotion of such charges, it is not for us to a »y. We have qaoted their case simply as an illustration, if we may venture to say bo, of the disadvantage, so far, at least, as the conviction of no learned and incapable or ill-disposed non-Catholics is concerned, at which the Church is placed in having no tribnnal apart from or higher than herself, to whose decision she may refer her accusers.

MLIGION AND CRIME.

In oar late review of Mr William Douglas Morrison's " Crime and its Causes," although we gave a tolerably copious reproduction of the writer's arguments, there was still a point or two which we were obliged, for the time at least, to pass over. Mr Morrison, for example, in referring bo tbe comparative immunity of India from crime, with the exception of infanticide, which he gave sufficient reason for omitting, remarked as follows in a note. " For the high percentage of infanticide in England see the evidence given before tbe House of Lords last July (1890) by Judges Day and Wills"— a consideration we may add, which must be taken into account in relation to those assertions that crime in England is decreasing, and which Mr Morrison disproves. Mr Morrison does not enter into the religions bearings of the matter — although we may gather from bis condemnation of a merely intellectual training that he is not indifferent to it. One

passage however ha doei give as in wbioh the subject ii mentioned and from which, perhaps, his disposition may be more clearly divined. " Some Italian writers," he siyi, " muke much of the religiosity of delinquents; hucu a sentiment may be common amorg off od'.-rs in Italy ; ft is certainly rare among the same class in Great Britain (p 196}." A bigot, we know, might reply, " Behold the diff r nee between Catholic and Protertaut criminals." Bat whtt then would become of the assertion thit Irish Catholi s throng the prisons of England and Fcotlaad ? This assertion, as we are aware, is false and grossly misleading. The excenive proportion of Irish Catholics returned in the priion statistics of Great Britain, as well as in thoM of these colonies, is arrived at only by leaving oat all question of everything bat the number of convictions, and comparing the Irish labouring population, heavily handicapped as they are among a vast majority who constantly provoke, discountenance, and repel them — not with a population only situated like themselves, which indeed is hardly to be found, bet with all the inhabitants, including the wealthy and aristocratic classes, of the several countries. As is the case In the colonies too, Irish prisoners in Great Britain certainly form the proportionate majority of minor offenders— so that, all things considered, statistics give little information as to their actaal or comparative numbers. Nevertheless Irish Catholic prisoners are unfortunately common enough to afford Mr Morrison means to judge as to the state of their religions sentiments. His judgment, we see, is adverse. But who are the Italian writers who, as Mr Morrison tells U9, make much of the religiosity of delinquents ? Unprejudiced men on whose word we may rely ? Oa the contrary, they are men of violent prejudices, atheists, and doctrinaires, bent on stamping out Christianity and reforming the world on the basis of their own fads. Let as take one of them, for example, that is, Signor Ferri, of whom we find special mention made elsewhere. Ferri denies the existence of such a thing as remorse among criminal*, or even the possibility of it. We take oar information as to all this from an article by M. Arthur Desjardina, of the Institute of France, published in the Bemue des Deux Mondet of January 1, 1891, and to which we referred a week or two ago :— " Except delinquents carried away by a burst of passion," he says, " malefactors, by the effect of an insensibility proper to them, feel no more remorse after having committed the misdeed than they felt repugnance before committing it."— What trace of religiosity is to ba found in this, we should like to know f The principle of Signor Ferri and his colleagues, however, as we have said before, is an absolute denial of free-will. Any thing connected with religion they will not admit of. M. Ferri, says the writer from whom we quote, consents to recognise the existence of " psycho-anthropological " rules— but on condition of first removing the " uncertaiutiea of theology and metaphysics " — that is to say, the soul and Qod. — Necessarily M . Ferri answers f rit that prisoners ia Italian prisons ar« extremely religious, bat who is to answer for M. 1 Ferri ? — That he is a tavant capable of remarkable feats of the imagination, as well as of some accommodation, we may conclnde from what M. Desjardins tells us concerning certain of his speculations. He finds, for example, that in certain Italian provinces the homicide has long arms, that in others he has them short — and yet again, that there are ethers where he has them sometimes long and sometimes short — " Rsti, houilli—mime chote." Is it not evident that M. Ferri can discover whatever he is in search of ?— We have, in a former note, alluded to the doctrine touching crime taught by M. Ferri and bis colleagues — and also to the measure they propose — not reformation, not eiucation, not intellectual or moral training, but elimination — the special proposal of M. Ferri, — We have alio referred to the metboJs by which they would bring it about — preferably the gallows or the surgeon's knife, or the transportation of the criminals to a savage country where the natives would enslave them— but failing all this, asylums where they should be permanently shut up. M. Desjardins, an authority whose opinion deserves come consideration, in contrasting tbe methods adopted ia civilised countries with those which these savans propose, allows as to gather that he bassome faith in religious influences. " Humanity, he tells op, has thought it possible to organise a system of penalties, correctional as well as punitive ; that is to say, of speaking to the eoul of the convict, of amending while chastising him, of conquering his habits of idleness, of giviog him a professional apprenticeship, and instruction both moral and religious. Ie has not despaired of converting him." M. Desjardins evidently recognises the place of religion in the correctional methods necessary. M. Ferri finds Italian prisoners religious, as he finds bis Italian homicides long armed or short armed, or both indifferently, to suit bis purposes. A scientint of the period, bent on also eliminating God and the soul, could hardly do otherwise. Mr Morrison, we have little doubt, wonld find Catholic prisoners in Italy as he has found them in Great Britain.

The Cbnrch of St. Columba, of Cologne, enjoys the privilege of having attached to it the oldest priest ia the archdiocese, the Rev. Peter Sc eurer, who completed bis ninetieth year on the 13 h inst. fie was ordained priest ia 1825, and is still in the enjoyment of good health, Baying Mass every morniDg at nine, anl eleven o'clock Mass on Sundays.