Current Topics AT HOME AND ABROAD.

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XXI, Issue 37, 11 January 1895, Page 3

Current Topics AT HOME AND ABROAD.

WHAT HAS BECOME OF HOMB BULK 1

the Government, and even of some of their members, that the next object of the Liberals should be the ending or mending of the House of Lordi. He admits that a plausible case may be made oat for this. Bat, be asks, does anyone believe that, without a revolution , the House of Lords oould be abolished within the next fifty years ? Even the taking away of their veto oould not be effected without convulsing England Ifrom end to end. Home Rale would be dead and buried, he says, before it was accomplished. " The population of Ireland would have been reductd by another million, a fresh causa for catting down still further the Irish representation at Westminster being thereby furnished ; and thus the last ■tate of that country would be worse than the first." Neither England, Scotland, nor Wales, explains Mr Redmond, has now, where each is personalty concerned, any just cause for rising against the Lords. The veto has only been exercised against Irish Bills. GreatBritain got all she wanted with the exception of the Employers' Liability Bill, and she would have got that if Government had ' omitted one sub-section, on which workingmen and even Liberal Members were divided. Mr Redmond claims that an earnast of the failuia he predicts has already been given, in that of the agitation begun by a meeting in Hyde Park soon after the rising ot Parliament — and which was almost laughed oat of existence. The writer contends that it is not necessary in the interests of Home Rale to end or mend the Lords. The Lords, be says, never persisted in rtsisting the country. They invariably succumbed to the force of public opinion. "If the next election should result in a clear verdict in favour of Home Rale, obtained on a clear issue, the House of Lords must and will succumb again." But would the 2nd Chamber set up in their stead be equally powerless ? asks the writer. '■ The new House of Lords, or whatevar it might be called, might well become almost the equal of the House of Commons, and might, perhaps, be at the same time more anti-Irish." Therefore, the party of which tha writer is a leader pleads for "an early dissolntioa and a direct appeal to the constituencies, on the isßue of Home Rule unencumbered, as far as possible, with other issues, so that the House of Lords may not again have any excuse for saying that the country voted not on Home Rule, but on other questions, and on that ground again refuse to pass a Home Rule Bill." Mr Redmond denies that the Liberal party have fulfilled their pledge to Ireland of making the triumph of the Home Rale policy their great aim until it was secured. He, again, denies that the Liberals of Great Britain have anything to demand as urgent for them as Home Rule is for Ireland. " The concession of Home Rule is vital not only to the peaca and contentment, but to the very existence of Ireland as a nation." As to the argument that the Liberals will be beaten if they go to the country on the single issue of Home Rule, Mr Redmond points to the patent fact that the longer a Ministry remains in office the less its chance of obtaining a renewed lease of power — and the more certain it is to augment the number of its envenomed foes. "It suffers from its very virtues." " Besides, even if the Liberals won on a composite programme, the result would in all probability be no advantage to Ireland. The House of Lords might again Bay, as it Baid after tha last geoeral election, that the country did not vote so much upon other questions and might again reject a Home Rule Bill on that pretence." And even if the Liberals were beaten on the single issue of Home Rule, it would be better for Ireland than that the; should w>n on the other issue. The condition of things in Ireland at present is that while Home Rale has been put off into the ' infinite azure of the future,' Castle government remains what it was in the days of Mr Bailor, the administrators of the law for the most part, as well as the spirit of their administration, being the same. The only difference is that, whereas a considerable amount of public money was

In the Nineteenth Century for November, Mr John E . Redmond asks this question, and gives a view of the situation that at least deserves repetition. Mr Redmond refers to the suggestion of supporters of

spent, or authorised to be spent, ia If r Balfour'a time on pnblto objects, there is nothing spent in that way now, and that whereas, in Mr Balfonr's time, the whole National party was Arrayed against tha Government, now a great portion of that party tolerate* in that Government acts and omissions "which formerly it would have denounced, while corruption and demoralisation are working their way silently but surely, by reason of the bribes held oat, in the abape of petty honours and offices of emolument, to various persons who, under a Unionist rigime, would bs ashamed or afraid to touob them." A new coercion rSgime, in short, Mr Redmond declares, would ba preferable to a continuance of this state of things, as again oombin* ing the strength of the National party against the foreign domination. Better, he says, it should] ba repeated, " than that a Liberal majority should be returned to hang up Home Rale onoe more, and at the same time to paralyse, at least for tome years, the National movement against foreign rule by poisoning some of the vary spring! from which such a movement must always derive a preat part of its strength and vitality." Mr Redmond oonoludes by advocating a return to the means by which Homa Rule was, in 1886, forced into the first place among the nrgent political qnestions of the day— that is blocking the business and paralysing the action of Paaliament. The writer quotes Mr Gladstone as approving of this measure. "He expressly said that he was not surprised at it, and that he oould not complain of it ; and if he is still a genuine Home Ruler, as one mast believe him to be, he must be both surprised and disgusted to find its promulgation by an Independent party made a ground of complaint against them now by professing Irish Nationalists in regard to whom he predicted — assuredly in the hope that tbey would fulfil his prediction — that they would continue to ' block the way ' till the ' primary ' question of Home Rule was satisfactorily settled."

ODDS AND ENDS.

" In the prohibition States of America (writes Max O'Bell in the North American Review for November) I have seen men drink liquor like caetor oil, oat of little graduated glasses, in the drug stores. Everybody in America knows that this is so. Once a day, after lecturing, I take a little stimulant, a glass of hot grog. In the prohibition States I bad to take it behind the counter of a chemist, or down in the cellar of the hotel. On one occasion it was cent to my bedroom, carefully wrapped up in brown paper with a label, ' the mixture as before.' " " This," says the writer, "is truly edifying ! It seems to me that the ily obtaining and drinking of spirits in this fashion is likely to do »fl much harm to a young man's moral character as even the dram itself could do to his body." Mr O'Rell draws the following moral :—: — •* Bat this is always the attitude of Anglo-Saxon Pharisaism. ' Let us hide certain failings out of sight and pretend to the worll that they do not exist, while we draw attention to our virtues and pray for th« conversion of the French." As to the views of Mr J. E. Bedmond which we have quoted, they seem to us founded on fact. We have all along feared that in looking to an abolition or an emendation of the House of Lords for the success of Home Rule, the friands of Ireland wtre over-sanguine. Concerning that Mr Bedmond certainly doea not exaggerate. The fact is, disheartening though it may be to face it, that the fight, in all probability, remains to be fought over again. A united phalanx under the guidance of a leader qualified for the task must once more, as Mr Bedmond insists, block, for th« salvation of their country, the business of the House of Commons. The difficulty, meantime, seems to be in the discovery of a leader. We have the utmost respect and admiration in various ways for Mr Justin M'Oarthy. Bat he has had ample time now to give proof* of tha necessary qualifications. It is evident that he has neither the tact to unite nor the strength to control. Mr Parnell, in short, though the expression ot his disapproval was unjustifiable in manner, has been justified by the results in his condemnation, if not in his ridicule, of the successor to him, as such, who had been chocen. Mr Bedmond, we say, seems to take a tolerably correct view of the situation. Let us hope that the necessity of the hour may bring to the front the man duly qualified to meet it. Mr Gladstone, in his translation of Horace, has met with the common fate of such translators. His work is a f ailnre. Most of

it ii commonplace, a good deal of it is heavy, and some of it is ludicrous, Not in one instance has be caught the grace of metre, the delicate refinement of tone, 01 the elegance of expression that distinguishes the original. But translations to give a true oohoof theoiiginal are impossible. They oan no more be made than oan a marble statue be repeated in a plaster cast. To console those 999 who, for example, according to Mr Max O'Bell, cannot appreciate the style or dramatic power of M. Zola, we venture to hint that the imperfect understanding of the origiaal at which they can arrive, may still be good for something. We moderns cannot see the foil perfection of the Venus of Mi.'o, bat its mutilated form is more beautiful to as than any perfection of a plaster cast could be. Even an imperfect comprehension of the origiaal may not be without its rewards. Whoever, therefore, desires to make an acquaintance with Horace, let him take np his grammar and dictionary, and hammer oat the meaning for himself. As be iB not likely to be •oother Byron he may fare better by the task than, if we may believe him, did the noble poet. At any rate, if be has any nous at all, he most obtain a truer idea than any translator can give him, even Mr Gladstone— and indeed Cretan himself is hardly more prosy.

In the course of a sermon preached on Sunday by the Bight Bey Dr Nevill, at St Paul's, Danedio, the right rev preacher, in alluei n to the change recently made of the church into a cathedral, warned his congregation that they were not to expect that because of its new title, tie church would at once become something magnificent, " something to remind us'of tbe glorious fanes of our motherland." The church, as it stands, nevertheless, represents to its owners something more honestly theirs. It has not been erected by and wrested from a people of a different faith and actuated by a different spirit, Left to themselves, and without tbe aid of the strong hand to acquire their fanes, Anglicans are comparatively modest in their churchbuilding. In the glory of the fanes spoken of by Dr Nevill, they have no part whatever — except as the inheritors of stolen goods.

A writer in Etudes (says the Aye Maria), who has made a careful study of the Parliament of Beligions in Chicago, expresses tbe opinion that it did harm rather than good, and that indifferentism was the only gainer by that polytheistic symposium. He admits that, under certain aspects, the so-called Parliament was a triumph for Christianity, although its cause was ill-served by many of its nonCatholic defenders. Tbe general result, however, is bad, as many persons predicted. Deism and atheism have since made distinct advances ; and the error, so widely spread, that one religion is as good as another is rendered more plausible to many minds. The Parliament of Beligions was a giand opportunity to illustrate in an age of religious error the intolerance of religious truth. Had not the Church been represented in it, the attention of the whole world might now be directed to her more than ever. A correspondent informs as that, in the district in which he resides, some dismay has been caused by our publication of Dr Moran'* letter on the Irish National Federation. Our correspondent adds that our plea of neutrality is rejected and that we also are looked upon as recalcitrant. He, in effect, asks us what we mean. Well ; if our correspondent will read the summary we publish above of Mr J. B. Bedmond'« article in the Nineteenth Century , he will probably divine our meaning. We believe that a long and arduous struggle, by a united party under a competent leader, still remains to be conducted before theTgoal is woo, and our belief is, further, that the strength of Ireland's friends abroad should be reserved for the call which will then be made on tbem. Their movement now seems to us premature, and likely to result in an exhaustion of patience and a flittering away of means. If, as we have said, others differ from us in their views we make no pretence of a right to influence them. Wbea we saw that there wss a side to be taken and a decided stand to be made, we were not slow to act nor cowardly in doing so. We awaited no safer opportunity nor tbe leadership of any axe-grinder, bnt speke out boldly and at to small risk to ourselves. When the time comes again, as come sooner or later we are confident it will, we shall not be found wanting. We cannot, however, conscientiously advocate a movement which we perceive to be useless, and which may possibly be harmful. We trust that our correspondent will acknowledge, at least, that our meaning is honest and our line of conduct not unmanly.

John L. Sullivan, the ex-champion of the prize ring, says that bt baa never passed a Sister of Charity in his life that ha did not remember that sh« " represented God's angel of mercy to the poor, and, without waiting to be asked, banded her something." Sullivan. aays this is hisjlaat year on tbe stage. He has bought an eighty-acre farm in Massachusetts, and will end his days on it. " People delight to say I'm an ignorant fellow," B<ys Sullivan, "yet I served a fair time at school. Went to Harvard eight months. Not that I wanted to of my own account, for 1 was a pretty rough boy, but to please my mother, bless her I If I could bring her back to life I'd walk on that ■idewalk upside down. Her idea was to mske a priest of me. A nice priest I'd have made, wouldn't 1 ? I'd be playing the parish for all they bad. My father was a little man— didn't reach to my shoulder. My muscles used to be at weak us a woman's. They are now. Feel 'em. ' John,' my father nsed to say, ' you'd better not get into a fight, 1 for tbe old governor tboupht I bad no show as a scrapper at all." Here Mr Sullivan chuckled to himself with unctuous satisfaction. " Yet I lived to make my mark at a fighter."