Current Topics AT HOME AND ABROAD.

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XXI, Issue 14, 4 August 1893, Page 1

Current Topics AT HOME AND ABROAD.

THE VBENCH ABMY.

- ■« As we write the aspect of matters with respect to Siam continues doubtful. Probabilities still Beem to point to an avoidance of anything like open hostilities between France and England. Possibilities, nevertheless, exist of a less desirable condition of thiDge France may be certainly regarded as unlikely to risk any action that would give Germany the opportunity for which she is known to be on the watch. In England, too, a war would be looked upon as only to be undertaken in the utmost extretnss. At the same time the Press in both countries seems to have adopted something of an aggravating, if not quite a belligerent tone. The whole East is looking on with interest ; and it is not difficult to foresee a state of things in which either nation might be placed in a position from which a peaoeable withdrawal would be a sacrifice, it Dot of honour, of at least a very necessary prestige. Under the circumstances the military power of France asMumes for us a closer interest. It Beema much to the purpose, therefore, that we have at hand some considerable information on the Bubject given by a thoroughly competent and trustworthy writer who Bpeaks from his own personal experience. The article to which we allude is that on the conscription in France contributed to the Contemporary for June by M. Hilaire Belloc. It takes, besides, an additional interest from the tact that the writer, although a Frenchman by birth and family, had been educated ia England, having been a student of the Oratory college at Edgbaston, where he waa moreover, a personal friend of Cardinal Newman. He is also looked upon as a young Catholic writer of good promise. M. Belloc, then, has served a year in the French army, and he gives us a phase of hi 9 experience in the article ia question. The mixture of the social ranks iv the army, he says, ia one of the principal causes of the recuperation of the country. " Under the French law every man without exception serves in the army for at least one year, During that year bo v merged entirely is ibc private soldier. His social rank, if he has one, ia completely ignored ; the officers who command him regard merely bis efficiency and faithfulness to duty." " The reßult," Bays the writer, " is peculiar, and. on the whole ib not prejudicial to the paities concerned." He however, thinks it doubtful whether such a system could be aaoptei eisewt^re. But in France tbe comparatively slight differences arisiug from social position make the association more easy. " Whether a man proves an efficient or inefficient soldier very much depends upon his physical strength or on his readiness to obey and to acquire tbe habits demanded of him. Physical strength is independent 10 a great extent of social differences, except that the peasant and the artisan have, ia all that involves direct manual labour, the advant'ge over the product of the wretched public school system that prevails ia France. Readiness ia eusured by a discipline pressing so hardly and so equally upon all that the babit of continual labour is acquired with an ease and rapidity that surprise the man himself who is submitted to it." " The great fatigues or rather tbe fatigues which seem so great after an ordinary civilian life," the writer goes on to Bay, " ihe long marches in full kit followed often by sleepless nights of guard duty seem at first unendurable. It is impossible to conceive, unless one has experienced it, how diSerent ia the hardship of such a life from that which a free man voluntarily imposes on himself ; and when men say, on hearing of some forced march or teat of endurance, that they have on this or that occasion surpassed it, they leave out of reckoning the thousand difficulties that aiise when large bodies of men have to do the same thing in concerted action and witb no regard for the individual." Fatigues, he explains, naturally press harder on the man who has eeen no active servic. 1 , but ihe ctiHnge, though sudden and extreme, has, as a rule, a good (.fLct. The Freuch lycSea learnß in the regiment an independence and a self-reliance that years in the society of men of his own stamp could never teach him, and he picka up health visibly, in spite, of the short hours of sleep the bad food, and tbe perpetual labonr." The writer compares tbe conscription with voluntary enlis'ment. He finds it most effective where regulations are concerned which — fall hardly on the priva'e

soldier, but which are hem fiei^l tothe army ssa whole. " It is, nevertheess, remarkable how lit ; le. auy spirit of disc mragerncn tor vexation exists in ibe ranks of the array nnd how litt'e the hardship which it has caused him to undergo affects tbe French eK ctor when he leaves it to enter upon civilian life. The popularity of tbe army, the admission of its necessity, and the pride taken in its new vigour are sentiments in which the whole nation iB practically nnanimous. A candidate who seriously proposed any reduction in its numbers or its expenses would stand no chance of election in any French constituency.' M. Belloc wri es as follows in'allusion to the misfortunes of the war with Germany :: — '■ Tae break-down of purpDse which ruined many of the leaders, the lack of proper discipline in the earlier battles, and the fact that the French combatants in the later ones were mere hordes of recruits rapidly levied, without training or experience of arms, all point to the peculiar circumstances of a peculiar time. Neither iufirmity of purpose, nor lack of discipline, nor armies unfamiliar with arms are characeristic of the French nation in history. These faults weie in the terrible campaign of 1870 the end of a disastrous regime. They were neither of long standing nor destined to endure, and it would be impossible in criticising the French army of to-day to draw any idea of its lasting defecs from the momentarj faults of that time." — The writer, neverihelesp, admits that certain of the objretions urged against the French sjldiers have some degree of truth, The physiaue of the French soldier, for instance, does not strike Englishmen as equal to their owr, and his general smartness is not up to the English standard. The French linesman, he admits, might be a good deal Bmarter in his personal appearance, and would not lose by another inch or two to his height. ;i And it remains only to mention in contrast the aviny peculiar and splendid qualities of & soldier which he does exhibit, and which are so apparent when one stands shoulder to slou'der with him in the routine of the barrackmom oron the hard days of the maroejvref." "There iF," he adds, "one quality in the Frenci soldier which gives him a supreme value; it has by the writers of his own country been called endurance, but p< rhaps that word in EtjglUh hardly gives the equivalent of what is meant ; it is rather a power of ncupurition »nd of extreme effort fora particular object, which distinguishes him. It goes side by eida with a peculiar gaiety which shows him ih.s lighter view of the darkest case. There is another quality - — which in days of short service and extremely rapid action is of do less importance —it is his intelligence." — "The two combined," sij b the wrier, " more than compensate for those qualities in wh;ch the critics of other natioci fiad him lackiog." "It has been remaiked," he says again, " that the high level of intelligence which the conscript exhibits in Franca is of immense importance in the present state of ihe army," Aa to the moral side of the conscription the writer does not dwell on it. " Suffice it to repeat," he Bays, " that personal service in the ranks, which, more th.n any other experience, is calculated to damp th 6 enthusiasm of a man, and to make him, if be looks upon it selfishly, lose sight of great national ideas, has in no way impaired tbe strong love of country in the French peasant and workman but has made it more sane and has given it a clearer object." " That the conscription in one nation baa helped social order," he add?, " while in another it has httacked i', is a matter depending largely upon the justice or injustice of its weight upon tue people. In the France of to-day it is a matter of history that the private s tidier, when he returns to hii civilian life, strengthens the Republic, und it is an experience of the present writer, in which he is sure that nil these who have shared in the life of the French barrfick-room will bear him out, that the value of his people, and the peculiar strength of those qualities which lie at the root of their character, are never more apparent than in those lorn?, hard mouths of ordeal which each man puts without question upon himself, aud which, in the mas, have remade tbe nation."-— For our own part, we may a id, that what M. Belloc tells as of tbe army of hid country exhibits it in a must favourable light. What, moreover, he does not tell us in so many word?, but implies in tba tone of his writing, is even more impressive. He speaks with an earnestness and a respect that are very convincing a 8 to the worth of the men with whom he has been associated. Whoever, therefore, the enemy may be that have to deal with the army of France, they will evidently have no contemptible foe to encouoter. M. Be-lloc's article, indeed, enables us more clearly to understand the anxiety of tbe

German Emperor for the passing of bis Army Bill— and let ub note, beBideP, thecontrast, on which M Belloc haa paseingly touched, between the good will with which the French people support their military burden and the struggle necessary to sustain theirs on the people of Germany. Let us hopr, in conclusion, that whoever the enemy may be the army of England, either independently or in alliance, may pot be identified with them. The misunderstanding about Si am will, we trust, be peaceably settled. The probabilities cf the matter art infinitely preferable to its possibilities.

POLITICAL JOTTINGS.

And is that all that philosophy is good for ? But still, we must admit that the New Liberalism leaves to its adherents— even to their leader — a very full freedom of the individual. Nothing, for txamplei could be more free than the manner in which last week, Sir Robert* Stout replied to the attack made on him by Mr Fish. Mr Fish > indeed, said several nasty things. He brought against Sir Robert, to All intents and purposes, a charge of influencing the Government to swindle certain creditors in order that he himself might be saved from incurring any loss, The case was that of the Fernhill railway. The mine connected with the railway, Mr Fish aaid, was, in fact, owned by Sir Robert Stout— who had first instigated the commis■ioaers to take possession of the line, and had now, also through the commissioners, induced the Government to revest the company with it — making no provision for the pay mint of debts due to other people, Mr Fißb added th it Sir Robert Stout was generally in the habit of employing go-betweens to do things with which he found fault. But wt might Have thought that this opportunity was one on which Sir Robert Stout would gladly seize to give to the Colony, and indeed to the world at large, to which, as we know, he is so anxious to afford a much needed example, a pattern of philosophical forbearance, and calm dignity of repudiation. He did nothing of the Bort. On the contrary, as we have said, he availed himself of all the freedom which the New Liberalism leaves in the hands of the individual. He in turn, attacked Mr Fish, and discharged in that gentleman's face every accusation of crooked dealing that had been brought against him throughout his public career. It ih not our business to pass any judgment in the case. We may possibly conclude, that, as is common when there is a quarrel, there were faults on both sides. Meantime it remains for us, like M. Jourdain on a somewhat similar occasion, toexclaim in tones of chastened remoastranci and surprise, " Monsieur le pbiloeophe ! " We may add that rumours are about to the effect that Sir Robert is bent, if not on a complete overthrow of the Government at least or a reconstruction of the Cabinet. We may conclude, in Bhort, that the New Liberalism leaves also to its adherents, and especially to its leader, a freedom to consult closely for the interests of number one. — Tbe scene betwean Mr Fish and Sir Robert Stout was not the only rumpus that during the wee£ conferred a particular liveliness on the House. There was also an outbreak on the part of Mr T. Mackenzie. Mr Mackenzie fell foul of the Government with respect to the works at Catling, where, he declared, he Qtid found it iuupos^ible to cbtssn employment for deserving and needy men. He accused the Ministry of raaktng use of the co-opera-fcivs Byßtem to promote the interests of party, and of iesersing employment for tboae alone who were of the right colour. Mr Earnshaw, who, by tbe way, seems not disinclined to do a little dirty wcrk in seconding the intention attributed to Sir Robert Stout of at leaßt ousting tbe present Premier, partly sided with Mr Mackenzie, and admitted that there was some justice m his charge. The hon Member, took the opportunity of upeakiog a word or two in his own favour. He denied that the right colour had anything tv do with the ma ter. He hirnae f, fur txample, be saul, had found employment for men who had votei against him and wno would do so again. The row culminated in a neene in which Mr Mackenzie accused the Minister for Labour of telling an untruth, and recommending him to show a little more decency. Mr Rolleston finally persuaded the irate Member for the Clutha to cool down and withdraw his offensive words. Mr Shera, it Beems, distinguished himself in tbe Financial debate by a very smart speech, in which he criticised hon Members generally in anything rather than a complimentary manner. Mr Bhera, however, appears to share the inconsistency that, strange to say, is everywhere a characteristic of the Liberal workingman. The whole position of this party is based on a community of interests, on a universal brotherhood, and yet, not Mayfair, not the Faubourg Saint Germain, is, in its particular way, more exclusive or jointly monopolistic. Mr Shera's contention was for tbe particular interests of the North We, nevertheless, are quite willing to make a compromise with him. He complains that every Minister hails from the South. Let him. then, take Sir Ri bert St ut and elect him for a Northern constituency at the approaching election. It may be doubtei whether Sir Robert, if he were to oust Mr Seddon, would retain bis populaniy on tr c West C o ibt. Possibly, indeed, the inten. tion of doing so with which he is accredited, might prove a hindrance to his being again returned there, lv tbe South, much aB we admire Sir Robert »nd fond as we are of bin , it is also doubtful aB to whether

he would be returned. We are used to him, and therefore not now so much affected by that brilliant philosophic strain, which, on the pricciple arnne ignotum pro magnifieo, co took the House by atorm the other day. Mr Fish, as we see, though hardly understanding more than other Members, remained undazzled. All the difficulty would be solved by their taking Sir Robert up to Auckland and electing him there. Every one must admit, besides, that it would be much prettier for him to kick Mr Seddon out from a different standing point than that which he occupies at present, and on which many friends of the Premier and the Cabinet were so eager and did bo much to place him. "If the North had not been vanquished by the Sooth, why were its representatives expected to bow down their necks under the yoke of Southern supremacy ?" So inquired Mr Shera as reported by the correspondent of the Otago Daily Times. But, there, we offer them the choicest firstling of oar flock. What more can they desire? To Sir Robert Stout, in whose heart the universal brotherhood is no vain sentiment, all constituencies are necessarily alike and cardinal pointß are indifferent. — Mr Ward'i reply to the critics of his Statement appears to have been in every respect sufficient. Indeed, he very fully brought out the weakness and querulousoess of their fault-finding. On that disputed matter of the surplus, too, he Bpoke in a manner to reassure us. But, in fact, Mr Rolleston had admitted that the surplus was real. The only qualification he made was that it waa an accident. They, however, tell us that it is always the unexpected that happens, and, even if they exaggerate, it very often is so. Therefore we may hope for a like casualty next year. Mr Bolleatoo, meantime, complains that the winding up of the Financial debate was brought about unfairly and in a manner that " jockeyed " several members of the Opposition out of their opportunity to speak. But if, as seems almost certainly the cage, these Members had nothing better to pay than had those of their party who had spoken, they may be congratulated on an escape from making a display of their emptiness, and the country has gained eomethiDg by way of a saving of time, — Mr Taipua, representative of the Western Maories, gives warning that, if surveying of Native lands be continued as it goes on at preeent, serious trouble may be the result. The righteous soul of Mr W. Hutchison is vexed because of the sum of money that leaves the Colony, with the hazardous destiny of supporting Tattersall's sweeps at Sydney. He has consequently applied to the Hon Mr Ward for a Grahamisation of letters so addressed. Mr Ward, however, declines to do anything in the matter. And, indeed, cvi bono? what better use would gamblers make of the money restored to them 1 How would it do, meantime, to pass an Act confiscating to charitable uses the money so devoted f But then Tattersall, no doubt, would invent an alias. We are hardly as yet arrived at that pitch of perfection in moral legislation when it will be possible to appoint a general po9tal censor at every post office, authorised to open at will every letter and dispose of it as the public good seems to him to demand. Times, however, are advancing, and, although, as we have said, the New Liberalism leaves to every man v fulness of individual freedom, it provides also for a interference r>£ ihe State in bis affairs. Tha near future, therefore, may bring forth all that is requisite. But Mr W. Hutchison's righteousness Beems generally on the gui vlve. We learn, again, from the Otago Daily Times that it ie his intention to propose a clause in the Education Act Amendment Bill, to permit of Bible-reading in the public schools. The clause is to the effect that, on the requisition of 20 parents or guardians of pupils, a school committee shall permit of the reading in question, with or without comment — -" Provided," and here is where the room for doubt occure, " the requlsiomsts appoint a suitable person for the purpose, and provide a lund for the payment of his services and other expenses, and appoint a committee of five to act in conjunction with th« school committee," Is it, then, Mr Hutchison's desire " to run with the bare and hunt with the bounds," as the old saying is 1 The accommodating nature of the h>n Member is well known, Does he mean to conciliate the Evangelical by the measure, and to conciliate the secularist by making it inoperative? In any case those 20 parents or guardians will not make themselves accountable for one penny. They will have Biblereading, and Bible-teaching if they can get them for nothing, but as to paying for them, that is another matter altogether, The case is one in which the " Word " must be given to them literally without money and without price. Mr Hutchison's righteousness, then, may, perhaps, be taken as tending, not quite inconsistently with the hon Member's general reputation, to cheat the devil in the dark.

BIGOTRY AND INSOLENCE.

The refusal of the Auckland Board of Education to accede to the request of the Most Rev Dr Lack, that they should authorise the inspection by their inspectors of the Catholic schools is possibly only what might be expected by any one acquainted with the character of tbe Boaiu's members. For our own part, we had known nothing whatever about the gentlemen in queßUon. The report of their meet* ing, however, as given by the New Zealand Herald of July 19, is quite sufficient to place ub au courant of their general disposition.

Never, in short, was a body of men guilty of a more shameless display of bigotry and insolence. Hardly, indeed, did the Orangemen of the Grand Lodge, who lately published abroad their satisfaction 18 Orangemen with the public schools, exceed in their spirit of ballying and anti-Catholic malevolence the disposition of the members of this Board. The Catholic who now, in the face of all this and without the most imperative necessity, sends his children to a Government school must, indeed, be a paltry minded creature — a craven heart wall fitted to play the flunkey's part. The great gun of the Board appears to be aMr Theo. Cooper. No doubt it belongs to our ignorance to have known nothing about him — not even his name. Somibody he evidently is, nevertheless, whom the fortunes of colonial life have tossed to the surface and made a very big person. And now we know also that Mr Theo. Cooper preserves, or has acquired a fair 6hare of what is rather vulgarly but expressively termed by our colonial youngsters, " cheek." In fact, he may justly be described in their particular vernacular as a " cheeky thing." It might, he said, be an advantage to the Catholic schools to be inspected, but " considering that those schools are mainly in and about the city, there was ample opportunity for the pupils attending them to attend the Board schools." We learn, notwithstanding, that Mr Theo. Cooper has a conscience. He subsequently declared that to grant the Bishop's request would be assisting with State funds denominational education, " and to this he was conscientiously opposed." We had, by the way, in our old home beyond the Shannon, & saying which, being translated into English, ran — "Tbe conscience of a pig in a potato garden." There is also aMr Muir on tbe Board, and he appears to be, if possible, more "cheeky "than even Mr Theo. Cooper. The fan of it is, too, that Mr Muir thinks a man can be a " cheeky thing," mad yet-, in tbe same breath, express himself like a gentleman. It would be interesting to learn where Mr Muir acquired his notions as to the convenances of the genteel life. The Bishop, he said, had sent them a gentlemanly communication to which he was perfectly certain they would reply in tbe same spirit. Bat then, "He thought the Bishop should be asked to consider the advisability of closirjg their schools and throw the whole of his

BCbolars into the hands of the Board, and they would educate them in the eama manner as ths other children. " This is Mr Muir'e notion of a gentleman's reply to the request of a gentleman ! The Board also made a display of their " cheek " in referring to the additional expense ihat would devolve on them — and that with regard to a section of the people whose suoport of their own schools eaves the State annually many thousands of pounds. We are glad meantime, for the credit of journalism to see that the New Zealand Herald disapproves of the rude and impudent recommendations made by these men to Dr Luck. He publishes an article dealing with a reference made of the matter by the B.shop to the Minister of Education — for his Lordship has very properly refused to receive the refusal of the Romd as final. " One or two of the members (says oar contemporary") advised Bishop Luck to cloße hia schools, and s.nd the children to the public schools, a piece of advice which they rm»ht us well have kept to themselves." The Herald,, nevertheless, sympathises with the Board — exposing, at the same time, perhaps involuntarily, a motive that speaks little for any desire felt rb to the state of of genuine education in the colony. "We have not the slightest doubt (he says) that every Board in the country woulii decline 10 undertake such a duty in the case of Roman Cat hoi, c schools, unltss imposed on them by the Act. They are niturally desirous to maintain the public Bcbool system as against piivate schools, especially private schools instituted by a denomination hostile to the system." The Boards, then, are afraid of competition with the C^tholi^ schools. They will admit of no interference with the dull level of secularism, and will do their best to maintain a uniform mediocrity. This is the beat explanation we can give of the Jlcrald's words. They, of courie, like the conduct of the Auckland B >ard, are capable of a worse interpretation, that, namely, of an insolent bigotry. And indcad the Herald at leaat shires m th} " cheek " of the Board by referring with approbation to their f< Hr of expense, although he admits that that would be trilliny. 'Jim >h p, m "untune, may take a h"-3on from this additional cxemplitie-m.in uL the spirit that prevails uuanibt tin ir •chools — a spirt uf bigotiy and insolence, and fear of their producing higher resuitu. If Di Lack's application has done nothing else —

but we have yet to leara what the answer of the Minister as to the provisions of the Act will be — it has at leaat sarvsd to bring the true state of the case before the publio eye, and the people particularly concerned should know how to be instructed by it, and strengthened in their resolution.

MORE " CHEEK."

Bui you see, it ig not necessary that you should see it. If Father Hackett himself sees it, that is quite enough. Wa allude to a remonstrance advanced by our contemporary the Otago Daily Times against Father Hackttt's reported refusal to receive into his Sunday school children attending the State schools. Father Ilacketr, we learn from an interview quoted by the Daily Times from the Auckland Herald, says he finds it labour thrown away to attempt to instruct such childrtn in their religion, and he refuses therefore to incur any responsibility in the matter, But hiw, we Bhould like to know, does that concern our Dunedio cantemporary ? Are journalists indeed free to stick their fingers into every pie, or when they interfere in matters that do not concern them, may we not set them also down as busy-bodies and meddlers? Our good contemporary, likewise make** some display of impudence by accusing Father Hackett of exercising a tyrannical anthority over hia people, and by hia resumption that he iB thus making aa attempt to force the conntry to grant the Catholic claims. Does oar good contemporary imply that by receiving ench children into hig Sunday school, Fa'her Hackett would be doing anything in promotion of those claims ? Not he, for he writes without any other meaning than that of raising a howl of bigotry. As to the charge made in our contemporary's cowardly sentence — " It is natural that they (Catholics) should want to take advantage of the system to the support of which they contribute, and some of them hod that their children are bstter taught than they would be in tho Catholic schools "—it is refuted by the action |o£ the Board at Auckland, and the exposure of the disposition of other Boards made by the New Zealand Herald. The secular authorities are afraid of the Catholic schools. Competition with them might oblige them to stir up their own much vaunted pcdoo'b to produce

more brilliant results. We may admit, ho-vever, that it is natural for Catholic^ as our contemporary sayp, to w.nt to take advantage of the system to the support of which they contribute. It ia natural for them to want to do so in a legitimate manner, but it would be altogether out of keeping with their nature as Catholics to risk for their children the curse of godleesness in taking that advantage. Again, as our contemporary says, it may bo impossible, and it ia probably undesirable ac well, for Father Hackett to isolate the lambs of his flock from non-Catholic influences, but it is certainly hia duty to do his utmost to shield them from anti-Catholic influences. — " How teaching children reading, writing, and arithmetic should have any religious or irreligious effect on the children we cannot very well sea." This is the sentence from our contemporary we took for our text. W- 11, if he is too blind to see for himself, and too bigoted to b" taught to see by Catholics, let him go to the Orangemen, They can fit a sympathetic glass to his eye, ani show him how they look on the system, namely, as satisfactory to them as Orangemen, and consequently as producing with a vengeance a religious or irreligious effect. Meantime, as we have said, Father Hackitt can see for himself, anl that Bhould be sufficient. If the Otago Daily Times suSerß fiom obliquity of vision he can't help that. To avoid our contemporary's guidance is what devolves on the rest of us.

A VAIN APPEAL,

Mk Sinnett in one or other of the reviews for June publishes an anßwer to Professor Max Muller, ia in which ha contends that that savant knows nothing about the late Madame Blavatsky, and little or nothing about Buddhism. This, he declares, does conta'n the doctrines of the Theoaophists. Professor Mai Muller, however, we leave to deftnd himself, and as for the doctrines of the Theosophists, even if they are contained in the teaching of Buddha, that by no means affords a proof that they are true. Where Mr Sinae't makes a palpable mia-t-iko is in pointing to the testimony of Mr Harry Kellar for a proof thdt in l'.iha such assume 1 secrets of nature as those by which Madame Blavatßky was wont to astonish her neophytes are known to a select few. Mr Harry Kellar, in fact, asserts that such secrets are

known also among the natives of Africa where we fancy no claim will be madf for th*> existence of Mahntmw, or of an occult science thai 8 all rrform or give any consolation to the world. H' re, then is aßtory that MrK llirtelln. It occare in t v eNorth American Review for January 1 893 ' During thcZ llu Wir I wasi South Afric*, 'ravelling uur l> thioug Zululand. la Duun'd roeer? »tioa two huadred miles iionh from Durban, 1 s w a witch doctor levitate the form of a young Z i'u V>y waving a tuft of gras« ab mt his hi-ad amid surroun lin^s cal-culat-d to impn sa hunseiveH deeply upon the most prosaic imaginatio i. I was evening and the witch do-tor, who belonged to the class describe ' more than once by Rider Haggard with great accuracy' was as revolting in hie appearance as the high caßte fakirs had been pleaaine." The scene waa arouni the ctmp fire. "After considerable solicitation from the natives . . . the conjurer, who at first seemed relucant to give an ex'nbrion of biß powers before me, took a knob kerry, or club, and fastened it at the end of a thong of raw hide about two f ft lo r ig. A. young native, tall and athletic, whose eyes uppe-irei >o he fixed upon those of the conjurer with an t-pprehen-iive steadfastness, took his own knob kerry and fastened It at the end of a similar of hide. The two then stood about six feet apart, io tbe full glare of the fire, and began, all the while in Bllence, to whirl their knob kerrys about their heads, I noticed that when tbe two clubs seemed in their swift flight almost to come in contact, a spark or flame passed, or appeared to pass, from one of them to the other. The third time this happened there waa an explosion, the spark appeared to burst, the young man'B knob kerry was shattered to pieces, and he fell to the ground apparently lifeless. The witch doctor turned to the high grass a few feet behind ub and gathered a handful of stalks about three feet long. Standing in tbe shadow and away from the fire, he waved with a swift motion, exactly Bimilar to that of the clubs a few minutes before, the bunch of grass around the head of tbe young Zulu, who lay &b dead, in the firelight. In a moment or two the grass seemed to ignite in its flight, Although the witch doctor was not standing within twenty feet of the fire, and burned slowly, crackling audibly. Approaching more closely the body of the native in the trance, the conjnrer waved the

flaming grass gently over his figure, about a foot from tbe flesh. To my intense amazement, the recumbent body Blowly rose from the ground and floated upward in the air to a height of about three feet, remaining in suspension and moving up and down, amending as tbe passes of the burning grass were slower or faster. As the grass burned out and dropped to tbe ground the body returned to its position on the ground, and after a few passes from the hands of the witch doctor the young Zulu leaped to his feet, apparently none tbe worse for his wonderful experience." Here, then, was an exercise of a power, apparently preternatural, and more as ouehing than anything 'bat Mr Kel.ar had witnessed among the fakira of India. It was in the possession of a savage who made no pretence of scientific knowledge, who, indeed, did not know that there was such a thing aacience io the world. The performance in question certainly discredits those of the Indian fakirs, from whom, perhaps, Madame Blavatsky had acquired her art — an art, as Father Clarke has siiowu us in the Month, not wholly free from a suspicion of diabolic agency Mr Sinnett may convict Professor Max Muller of ignorance. Hie appeal, however, to the testimony of Me Harry Kellar haa proved a lignal failure.

A UNIQUE BHIfIDY.

Everything, the possibility of war in Siam, and •verytbing else, necessarily sinks into insignificance compared with the row in the House of Commons, a row unique in the history of the House, as Mr Gladstone declares it to be. There is a question as to the appointment of a committee to inquire into the origin and cause of the scrimmage, but, we are told, Mr Gladstone hesitates, declaring his belief that there would be an intioduction of much informal matter, »nd evidence hopelessly diverse, If, therefore, our own conclusions, gathered from the summaries forwarded here by cable, are not quite clear, we may be held excused. It seems doubtful whether— on the enforcement of the closure for the last time — the fracas began with a shout emitted by Mr Arnold Forster, "Why associate with bloudy Irish rebels 1"— or with the cry of "Judas" aimed by Mr T. O'Connor at Mr Obamberlain, but of which the chairman of committees refused to take any notice. The row, however, appearß to

have terminated with the consent of the chairman of committees to report Mr O'Connor's offence to the Speaker, —Mr O'Connor apologising after the Bpeaker had rebuked the House " with great dignity." — Meantime, good u ess only knows what bad or what had not tuken place. It is plain that the Unionists had given w»y to all the exeitemeot of their anger and panic at the fall persuasion arrived at by them that the success of Home Rule *as now a certainty. Three of their party, namely, Messrs Hayes and Fisher and Sir S. Aehmead Bartlett, hauled Mr Logan, the member for Leicester, from Mr Balfour's seat, which the bon member had occupied after a few hot words with Mr Carson. " A fiea fight followed, during which Radical punished Conservative, and tbe Conservative whip seized the Badical by the scruff of the neck and shook him. — A number of Irish members then attacked the Opposition, and in the gangway there was instantly a confused mass of shouting, struggling, and fighting members Others clambered over the benches to join in the melee. The Unionists who were locked out clamoured for admittance. Messrs. Burdett-Coutte, Condon, W. Redmond, and Healy were conspicuous in the fray. Colonel Saunderaon hit oat buldly, felling several members. Mr O'Brien, standing on a Beat, vainly implored members to maintain order. Dr Tanner's friends helped him out of the row. Mr Burns shouldered members right and left and tried to suppress the disorder. The Irishmen were knocked down and trampled upon. Mr Healy fell after a fierce struggle of five minutes. The strangers in the gallery hissed and cried • Bhame.' " — We are told that Mr Gladstone, " mate, pale, and calm," sat looking on, but without making any attempt to restore order. And how, indeed, could he f That certainly was not the ta«k for a man some two or three summers past his eightieth year. Sir Ashmead Bartlett's shout at him, in fact, valiant as that combatant might have shown himself in dragging Mr Logan by tbe legs, was tbe shout of a coward.— " This is your doing." — Hon Members showed tbe marks of the fray in torn shirts, coats and waistcoats, and the back of one of tbe benches was wrenched off. But the whole affair was deplorable and disgraceful. We can well believe that, as reported, it has aroused

a strong feeliDg throughout the country. For ourseNea it possesses ono mitigating feature only, 'that is the proof afforded by it of the terror and conviction of the Unionist party. In the feeling it has aroused in the country, besides, we may discern a presage of what public opinion would ba with regard to any outbreak that might occur on the final passing of the Bill. Ttois unique scene in the House of Commons, we may rationally conclude, will be the last and only, as a has been the first, violent demonstration of any importance arising from the success of the Bill. Of those mere matters of courße, the ordinary rows of the Orangemen, we make no reckoning.

OTTB ORANGE FEIENDS AGAIN.

If anyone wants 10 know or to be reminded of what Orangeistn means, he may find all he need have for the purpose in an address delivered' at Sydney, oq the evening of July 12, by the Eight Worshipful Grand Mas-er of the Lodge there— one Mr J. 0. Neild, M.L.A. Possibly for impudence of mißtatement, for boaßtful falsehood, and for hypocritical cant, this speech may be taken as the extreme to which such an effort can go. The speaker, a knownothing of the know-nothings, began with a protest against the illegality of the meeting at which he presided, expending on it a deal of playful sarcasm, and finding fault with the Upper Chamber, which, he said, had more than once rejected a Bill to make such assemblies, and all other party displays, legal. the speaker was in downright vicious earnest when he afterwards pointed out that a law against the Jesuits existed in the colony, on whose enforcement he would rigorously insist. It is not, however, oar intention to pursue Mr Neild's argument at any length or in particular detail, and, in fact, it reads pretty stale to as. Almost all of its contents bave been long familiar to us, and a mere spiteful repetition of old calumnies ofien refuted would prove but profitless matter for quotation. VVh.it was new to ua in ihe harangue were some pasßHges from atheistical Italian publications of the day, in which the Suc.ety of St Vincent de Paul, of all others, is held up to detestation as everything wicked and formidable — everything, in short, that atheists and Orangemeu themselves would be if they bad the opportunity. A point, moreover, which we would especially note

is the tie that binds the ultra- Protestant and the atheist, the Orang c*e * man and the Continental Mason, together, a common hatred of the Catholic Church — a proof, as we have ere now hailed it, that Satan cannot be divided against himself. As to the rest of the address, it is of the time-honoured class — a mere repetition, glib and virulent perhaps beyond the common, hut still a mere repetition of the traditional know-nothingism. There is a crow at Cardinal Moran, as baying been defeated in an argument with this man Neild, which, of course, we may take for what it is worth. The Cardinal knows how to avoid the Boiling of bis hands. There is a coarse word or two of reproach against the memory of Archbishop Vaughan, and then, in conclusion, the hypocritical whins of tha Orangeman as to bis being a man of peace, the friend and well wisher of his Catholic neighbour, the dearly beloved neighbour, whose throat he would cut if he got the chance, and whose head he does occasionally break ot tear the hair off, according to sex. Another point, nevertheless, worthy of notice in this disreputable harangue is the stress laid all through it on the resolution shown by Catholics in rejecting the godleßS Bchools and giving their children a Catholic education. The godless schools, in fact, are now claimed by the Orangemen as their own particular property, and for those of us who knovr what Orangeism is, that of itself should be sufficient. This addreßS of Mr Neild's is, therefore, in a certain sense, instructive, though stale and traditional, reading.

ODDS AND ENDS.

Me W. R. Brown, who writes from Macclesfield to the Methodist Times, calls attention to the instance of biting your nose to vex your face Bhown in the attitade towards Home Rule of Irish Methodists and Irish Protestants generally. He tells of a case which he had himself heard related by a young Methodiat minister. This minister had been apprenticed to the drapery trade, and with much Belf-denial caved money to buy his mother a new dress in which to go to chapel, " but when his ambition was realised and he triumphantly took it home, his poor mother was afraid to wear it, fearing the landlord might hear of it and raise the rent in conseqnence of her apparently increased prosperity." " Such cases," adds the correspondent, " were only too numerous ; but Methodists and other Protestantß continued to suffer, and actually to oppose their own liberation, for the only reason (as far as I was ever able to learn) that if they improved their own position they would also improve that of their Roman Catholic neighbours." Mr Brown concludes with an argument from his own personal experience that Home Rale would involve do persecution of Protestants. " Having," he writes, " for a long time Berved as an assistant in the largest retail Catholic business-house in Ireland, with hundreds of Catholic young men working by my side, and living and sleeping in the same house, I assert that the spirit of religious iotolerance was never manifested ; my religion was always resoected ; and never either by sign, or jest, or jeer did those Boman Catholic Irishmen cause me a moment's pain, or do anything to justify the wild shrieks of fear, which the advent of Home Rule appears to call forth. Our light and cheerful friend "Nemo " of the Dunedin Star is puzzled, he says, at the state of his feelings. But we think we can explain the matter to him. At least we can suggest the alternatives that contain its explanation. " Why," he says, "I Bhould always chuckle at the notion of an American bishop I can no more explain than I can demonstrate the physiology of tickling ; still less can I give a tangible reason why the mental picture of a solemn assembly of episcopal Yankees m bib and tucker (or whatever they call those things) Bhould be to me so distressingly diverting." Well, but you know there are two classes of people who are easily amused, that ie, children and fools. We, for oar part, are not acquainted with the date of our light and cheerful friend's birth. Therefore, we cannil decide as to the class in which he takes his place. We have, how-

over, suggested the alternatives, and it now remains for our " Nemo ' himself to make his selection. " A young woman named Golding alleges that poisoning and im. morality are practised in 10 convents. A commission composed partly of Protestants and partly of Roman Catholics are inquiring into the charges. Among the commissioners are Cardinal Vaughan, the Duke of Norfolk, and Mr Guinness.' I—This1 — This is a cablegram under data London, July 25. We have reason, however, to doubt its contents. Miss Ellen Golding was a member of a religions community in France, and her experience of convents had been confined to those of her Order at Calais and Douai. She now plays the character of tha " Rescued Nan " — bat as Bhe could write from her convent to her solicitor and her brother-in-law and could herself post her letters, it is evident there could have been no great difficulty in rescuing her. She was often in the streets and might have refused at any time she liked to return to the convent. Bhe has been for some time under the tuition of the Rev Jacob Primmer, and is necessarily prepared to say anything tbat comes into her head or that is suggested to her. What we doubt is that anyone worth speaking of takes any notice of what she says. And we, for our part, are very Borry that our good contemporary feels very sorry without any cau9e. We allude to our contemporary the Napier News who has grievonaly taken to heart his own mi»understandiDg of a letter from a Wellington c irrespondent published in our issue of July 14. Our contemporary is heart-stricken because be fancies our correspondent objects to the Cathol c children in tha country schools having to read tha " Village Blacksmith." But our correspondent doesn't. Our correspondent says : " Giving full credit to the above" — a quotation from the Advent Revisw calling out against the inclusion of the Angelical Salutation in a combined form of prayer — "we would not be justified in accspting tha present standards used by the different boards of education throughout New Zealand." And, then, as an example, he makes a quotation from tha verses referred to. If, therefore, our good coiatemporary will read the letter with a little more attention he may cheer up, and feel no longer very sorry, and call no more upon the god?. The late Mr M'Kinley was the husband of Madame Antoinette Sterling and the brother of Major M'Kinley of the famous tariff. Who was he himself/ Mendelssohn's father when he was young was the son of the great Mendelssohn, and when he was old the father of the great Mendelssohn, but he himself was nobody. The issue of the leather railway passes to the new members of the Upper House instead of the time-honourel golden baubles, ia hardly explained satisfactorily by tbat reason assigne 1 to the effect that it was bard to get the gold ticket returned — particularly on (ha death of the legislator. Is recovery, for example, thought likely to be less easy because the aurvivois will ba found among the working class — or are they considered less justified in retaining the trinket} At all events, why was the stuff of the cobbler especially chosen? to keep before the eyes of hon Councillors the necessity of sticking to the last? or simply because there is nothing like leather? It if, nevertheless, consistent that men of the people should bold the toyi of the bloated aristocrat in contempt and bear themselves plainly and humbly. But is it true, by the way, that one of our Dnnedin honourables has assumed a " bell-topper " hat in Wellington, having waited until he got to Christchurch to try it on fjr the first time? If bo, no wonder he should kick against the leathern pass.