Current Topics

New Zealand Tablet, 15 December 1910, Page 2051

Current Topics

Finality About Ferrer :' The actual fact of the Portuguese revolution was first published by the Daily Mail; but according to English papers all the press honors in connection with the occurrence were borne off by Mr. M. H. Donohoe, of the Daily Chronicle, both for his historic account of the revolution and for the remarkable and accurate prophecy which he was able to send. With some foreknowledge of what was coming, he was in Lisbon at the critical moment; and the London "**. Times, in a leading article, paid a high compliment to his ' vivid narrative ' of the outbreak. This gentleman — whose good faith and high standing as a journalist are thus attested on such competent authority— a long conversation with Serior Canalejas a few weeks ago in Madrid. His last question was on the subject of the execution of Ferrer and the reply which he elicited from the Spanish Premier is a pill which Mr. Joseph McCabe and his rationalistic camp-followers will swallow with a very wry face. According to the author of the hysterical Martyrdom of Ferrer, the founder of the Modern schools was a martyr to enlightenment and progress," deliberately done to death by clerical influence. Against this hallucination, Senor Canalejaswho was Leader of the Opposition when Senor Maura's Government ratified the decision of the military court which found Ferrer guilty and sentenced him to death— emphatic testimony. His reply to Mr. Donohoc's query was as follows: —' I will tell you frankly that I consider Ferrer was incontestably a revolutionary, who was condemned after a fair and open trial. I know there has been much noise about it abroad, but I see no justification for this, as far as it refers to his trial. Would he have been condemned if my Government had been in power? I say most certainly yes. But whether he would have been executed is another matter. If I had been Premier I might have recommended his reprieve, although I do not say I should have done so. The Clericals hated his schools and his teachings, but to say that they brought about his condemnation and death is an insult to the Spanish nation and to the honor of the Spanish officers of the armv who tried him.' This should just about settle the Ferrer question. Eugenics and Marriage Many eugenists— they love to call themselves—and still more of the general public have been somewhat in the dark as to what precisely is the teaching of the great science on the subject of marriage, especially with regard to the permanence or otherwise of the marriage bond. Thanks to an article in the Nineteenth Century for October by Mr. Montague Crackanthorpe, K.C., we now know exactly where we are. Mr. Crackanthorpe—who, as president of the London Eugenics Society, speaks with some authority— thus sums up the cardinal principles of the movement:—'(a) Marriage—according to eugenics—a privileged, yet terminable, contract, a contract of supreme moral, spiritual, and social value, not an indissoluble bond, (b) Restrictions on marriage to be based, not on decrees of general councils of the Church, but on known laws of health and human progress. These laws, once ascertained, to be as binding on the conscience as the decalogue, (c) Marriage not to be entered on unless there are present soundness of body, saneness of mind, and unity of spirit. These conditions filled, marriage takes on a sacramental quality; without them, incalculable misery mav ensue (d) The mission of eugenics—the education of public opinion on the great question of the relations between the sexes.' Marriage is thus to be ' a terminable contract.' Knowing what men are, we can judge for ourselves of the ' supreme value of a contract from which they are thus permitted to escape at will And .yet Eugenics-according to its devotees— a religion! fo Mexico's Grand Old Man The readers of the scanty and fragmentary cables which have appeared during the last few days regarding the recent uprising in Mexico would be greatly misled and misa taken if they laid down their daily paper with the impression that the country was in a state of constant tur-moil-torn by internal dissensions and kept in a perpetual ferment by bloody revolutions. There was a time-almost a quarter of a century ago—when Mexico would have fairlv answered to some such description; but they have changed all that, and, broadly speaking, the credit for the regeneration of Mexico is due to one man-General Porfirio Diaz its present President The condition of things prevaS to-day-as the result of the enlightened policy of President Diaz-is admirably described .in a recent article by Mr

J. B. Frisbie, whose residence of over thirty years in the country enables him to speak from personal first-hand knowledge of the facts. '. * After describing the evils of the bad old days, Mr. Frisbie proceeds: ' But how changed is all that now! General Diaz adopted a policy of enlightened progress, and from national ruin and veritable chaos has evolved a mighty nation, universally respected, whose credit is unsurpassed, whose commerce and industries have been developed in a wonderful, almost miraculous degree, whose government is wise, stable, and just, whose people are hardworking and progressive, where Church and State have, in a great measure, adjusted their differences. Of course, there is a so-called political opposition which, at times, occasions some excitement, but it is seldom taken seriously by the thinking people. No one is opposed to General Diaz or his policiesthere might be a few remote and unimportant cases—and it is the universal prayer in Mexico that her Grand Old Man will be spared for many years. The rare gifts of this' great soldier-statesman have done more than aught else in the upbuilding of this great nation, and while there are many patriotic, able, and scholarly collaborators aiding, very materially, in the colossal development under. way, everybody, irrespective of creed or nationality, recognises and appreciates the splendid worth of "El Gran Presidente," whose name will live as one of the greatest in American continental history.' More About Irish 'Crime' The trivial and ridiculous nature of many of the items that go to swell the records of ' crime ' in Ireland has often been referred- to in these columns. Some short time ago we quoted the case of an Irish storekeeper who was brought to court and fined for having a gill measure that was too large! Surely in no other country but Ireland could that particular crime have been unearthed. The other day London Truth made some scathing comments on a number of similarly heinous 'crimes' which have recently been put on solemn record in Irish courts and papers. Said the London journal: ' Some light is thrown on the terrible amount of crime existing in Ireland by two newspaper cuttings. One refers to proceedings in Limerick Police Court against a whole batch of offenders. They were all of tender age. Some had been guilty of playing handball in the streets. Others had committed the equally heinous crime of trundling hoops, while one little girl had actually thrown a lump of mud at a wall. The Limerick wiseacres fined the parents of the children instead of telling the police that they might be better employed than interfering with children in their perfectly harmless play.' According to the Edinburgh Catholic Herald,' it is on record that the Irish police in not remote times prosecuted criminals on such charges as— 'Giving a humbugging sort of a smile' and 'coughing at a boycotted pig,' while on another occasion ' the best little girl in Ireland ' went to prison for some such crime as humming ' Harvey Duff' while a policeman passed along. '.''.*'■•'■'' ''■"'■'. ; -' In the meantime it is satisfactory, though not surprising, to note that, according to the latest Blue-Book, of real crime in Ireland there has been a steady decrease.! Part I. of the Judicial Statistics of Ireland for 1909, containing the criminal statistics,: has just been issued by the .Regis-trar-General, Sir William Thompson, and in many respects is extremely satisfactory reading (writes the Dubiln Evening Telegraph). During the year the indictable offences reported to the police numbered only 9873 for the whole of Ireland, as against 10,266 in 1908. One paragraph in the report will be read with great pleasure bv temperance reformers. ' The number of cases of drunkenness in 1909 * we read, ' is less than the number in 1908 bv 5519, and i'f the figures for drunkenness in 1909 are compared with the average number of such cases in the ten years 1899-1908 it appears.that a decrease amounting to 16,358 has occurred. The actual decrease was from 74,267 to 68,748. * 'The number of indictable offences committed,' says the report, 'is the most reliable standard for the estimation of the prevalence of crime in a country'; and from a comparison of the figures for county and city districts it appears that for such offences there was a decrease in 26 and an increase in only 14. The increases ranged from three each in Meath and Monaglian Counties to 256 in the Dublin Metropolitan Police District. Between these extremes the increases were 4 in Mayo, 5 in Wexford 6 in Queen's County, 14 each in Carlow and Armagh, 15 i n Antrim 22 in Louth 26 .in Dublin, 29 in King's County, 30 m Waterford, and 44 in Cork City. Observe that on'lv one Western county, Mayo, shows an increase in indictable offences, arid that only to the extent of four but the West, as our readers are aware, is the favorite and par-

ticular hunting-ground of the Orange members.' ' And how does it stand,' asks our contemporary, ' with the other Western counties? In Clare there was a decrease in indictable offences of 121, in Galway of 58, in Roscommon of 56. in Kerry of 42, in Westmeath of 22, and in Leitrim of 7. These include the counties that were, during the session, attacked both in the House of Commons and the House of Lords, and in connection with which Mr. Birrell was held up as a man who was neglecting his-duty as Chief Secretary and allowing everything in the Western districts to run into riot and revolution. Assaults have decreased from 22,065 in 1899 to 14,207 last year, the average for the ten years being 17,465. In this case the decrease is steady from year to year . To return to the table which gives the figures for Drunkenness and Drunk and Disorderly,' we find that is the same almost continuous decrease for the decade yea/ by year, from the 98,401 of 1899 to the 68,748 of 1909. The average in this case, for the ten years, was 85,106. Notwithstanding, therefore, the howls of the Lord Londonderry's and the Captain praigs, and, notwithstanding the lurid articles of the ' special correspondents * from London, the social condition of Ireland is steadily improving.' « Popery * in the Kirk: A Hymn Question Our Presbyterian friendsso we learn from the report of the proceedings of the General Assembly which has just concluded its sittings at Auckland —are once more confronted with the ever-recurring hymn difficulty. It is a troublesome question at all times and in all churcheseven where there is the most absolute agreement on matters of faith. But in the case of our Presbyterian brethren the situation is complicated by doctrinal difficulties. For a. number of years the book in use by the Presbyterian body was a volume entitled Church Praise —a very excellent collection, containing some of the best hymns by Newman, Faber, Caswall, and other Catholic writers. Nine or ten years ago this was replaced by a new book called the Church Hymnary, and" it is now proposed to supersede the Hymnary by yet a fresh collection. It is interesting to recall that when the introduction of the Church Hymnary—that is, the book at present in —was proposed, its adoption was vigorously, not to say truculently, opposed on the ground that there was too much ' Popery 'in —that it was, in fact, an almost out-and-out Popish production. That is, of course, an absurdly exaggerated description to apply to the book in question; but the view was solemnly maintained by the minister who presented the case for the ' anti-Romanists,' and we reproduce some of the evidence, which —in the columns of the Outlook —he advanced in support of his contention. * . .'To begin with,' he complains, we have in the New Hymnary, as a novelty, hymns with responses, to which the vast majority of our congregations would object if they were called for in any other part of the service. He who finds it difficult to introduce them in prayer or the reading of the Word has only to fall back on this convenient hymn book. In the Hymnary, again, are to be found many hymns of Romish writers, whose productions find no place in Church Praise, such as hymns by Rev. I. W. Chadwick (who is an active member of the Society of the Holy Cross, from which has emanated The Priest in Absolution) hymns by Revs. F. Oakley, J. Austin, M. Bridges (all perverts to Romanism), and many more.' Our ultra-Protestant scents serious danger to the kirk in this Hymnary compilation. 'There is,' he says, heart-brokenly, 'suitable material here for introducing into the devotions of our longsuffering Presbyterian people some, of the most dangerous doctrines of the Church of Rome. Does a man wish to honor Good Friday? Let him give out Hymn No. 58, gifted us by Faber for that very purpose.' Reference to the Hymnary shows that No. 58 is the well-known O come and mourn, with me awhile; See Mary calls us to her side; The latter line having, however, been toned down to O come yo to the. Saviour's side. * 'Does he wish,' continues this modern Jeremias 'to keep the heathen (sic) festival of Christmas? Let him call on his congregation to sing No. 33 We hear the Christmas angels The great, glad tidings tell. Has he a mind to begin the observance of Palm Sunday quietly, let him announce No. 49, a Romish missal (sic) for that holy day, translated by the ritualist, J. M. Neale Has he a purpose to honor the season of Lent he has Hymn No. 39 ready to his hand, which is simply a ner version of the Gospel: ■ l

Shall not we Thy sorrow share, ' And from earthly .Joys abstain; . Fasting with unceasing prayer, Glad with Thee to suffer pain. Has he an itching to introduce Mariolatry, let him invite them all to sing:' Near the cross was Mary weeping, There her mournful station keeping. Let him tell his people that this hymn of the Middle Ages was written by Pope Innocent 111., and that the best part of it (being direct addresses to the Virgin Mary) have" beeu left out by the authors of this hymn book, who were broadminded fellows, but had to consider the prejudices of many. Has he a purpose to teach the worship of the material cross, let them all sing one of these: No. 272.—'With the cross (crucifix) of Jesus going on before,' etc. No. 65. —' To Thy dear cross (crucifix) turn Thou mine eyes undying,' etc. No. 412. —' While upon Thy cross (crucifix) we gaze,' etc. Is he longing to get up a procession such as is now common in the Ritualistic Churches of England? He has many processional hymns to choose from. Or if he has a vision of the crib with the straw and the doll inside, and the kneeling stool outside, he may take the apparently harmless but totally unseriptural Hymn No. 528, framed by Edward Caswall for this very purpose: Sacred infant! all divine, Teach, 0 teach us, holy child, By Thy face, so meek and mild, etc. ■aThis representative of the Old Guard of Calvinism has far from exhausted the list of ' Romish errors ' which may be disseminated by means of this pernicious compilation. He continues remorselessly: ' Does he (the minister) aim not only at inculcating prayers for the dead, but at getting his congregation to pray, then he can get his conductor and choir to strike up, most grandly, No. 120, a translation of a Popish mediaeval hymn composed by a Franciscan monk, Thomas of Celano: From the dust of earth returning, Man for Judgment must prepare him, , Spare, O God, in mercy sparo him; Lord all pitying Jesus blest, Grant them Thine eternal rest. Has he conceived the design of introducing a litany into the Presbyterian Church at Home or here, he can familiarise his congregation with such a hymn as No. 99, the refrain cf each verse of which is, " Hear our solemn litany." Does he sigh for the privilege of teaching consubstantiation, let him select for one of the hymns to be sung Nq. 417 : His body broken in our stead, Is here in this memorial bread. Does he burn to make his hearers responsible for the doctrine of the real presence, let him choose as often as possible hymns like No. 472 and No. 473 (which speak of " the altar" and "the altar throne," Rome's title for the communion table), or 413: That as death's dark vale we tread, Thou mayst be our strengthening bread, Grant us, Holy Jesus. Or, better still, let him take No. 409, translated from the Latin by the famous ritualist, Dr. Neale: Come, take by faith the body of our Lord, And drink the blood of Christ for you outpoured. * This uncompromising son of Knox is dreadfully severe on the great hymn classics of the Middle Ages. 'This,' he says, ' is only one case of tampering with fire, out of many. It is as if the Church took an obscene gutter song, or one of the worst effusions of Byron or some immoral French writer, or Juvenal, and tried to adapt it to the worship of the sanctuary. How the knowing ones would laugh.' It does not seem to occur to him that the knowing ones are smiling, if not laughing, already. He concludes: 'No lover of the Bible and Reformation principles can look ?„t England, Scotland, and Ireland to-day, and conscientiously say that it (this Hymnary) is a book for the times.' We are sorry that we have not even a crumb of consolation to offer this troubled spirit. For we have the strongest possible suspicion that when the new compilation—which is to take the place of this so gravely tainted Hymnary—comes into use, it will be found that there is not less but more, of 'Popery' in it. , '