Current Topics

New Zealand Tablet, 26 January 1911, Page 143

Current Topics

oThose » German Arras ’ The Ulster Orangeman can make more fuss and disturbance, on a smaller capital, than probably any human being in existence. It now turns out, as might safely have been anticipated, that all his lurid talk about ‘ arms from Germany ’ and ‘ dying in the last ditch ’ was mere wind the bluff and swagger of impudence out of a job. Says a London cable of January 19: The Daily Mail’s 'special commissioner, who was sent to Ulster to investigate every source, finds that there is no foundation for the rumor that the people there are arming against the possibility of Home Rule being conceded.’ The Hat Question The fashion,’ Shakespeare says, ‘wears out more apparel than the man ’ —and assuredly it wears out more apparel than the woman. ‘ Fashions change like leaves on the bough ’and hat, and coat, and skirt and costume must be used only for one season, and then replaced by later ‘ creations ’ not because the older ones are worn out, but solely at the bidding of tyrant fashion. Fortunately this * come-and-go ’ of fashions has sometimes its compensations. The fashion this season, for example, in feminine headgear, as the male world knows to its sorrow, is what is variously known as the ‘ Merry Widow,’ the ‘ flop,’ or the ‘ mushroom ’ hat —a monstrosity which no one can pretend is pretty, and which when worn as it now commonly is at church and other public assemblies becomes an absolute nuisance. The poet of old excused the sex for some of the little weaknesses and eccentricities which derogate from the dignity and grace of womanhood by saying: ‘ If to her share some venial errors fall, Look in her lace, and yo.u’ll forgot them all.’ The woman who wears the ‘mushroom’ hat, however, cuts herself off from that way of disarming censure, for unless you are something of a contortionist it is a sheer impossibility to ‘look in her face’ at ah As we have said, the appearance of this huge head-gear in churcheffectually shutting out all view of priest and —has become a veritable nuisance; and sensible people will learn with relief that as a result of the ebb and flow of fashions the ‘mushroom’ is to go out this season, and the Dolly Varden ’ is to come in. As to what a ‘ Dolly Vardcn ’ is, we have the haziest possible notions; but it simply cannot be equal, in obtrusive and aggressive ugliness, to the ‘ mushroom.’ A writer in the London Tablet lately advocated the Spanish mantilla in church as a protest from Catholic women generally against the hideous millinery fashions which are fast becoming as conspicuous a feature in our churches as they arc elsewhere. The idea is an excellent one; but until something can be done to break the power of fashion in the general community we are afraid the suggestion is in the nature of a counsel of perfection. A Reunion Movement The Primitive Methodist Conference, which has just concluded its sittings at Wellington, has inaugurated what the Press Association in a lengthy message describes as ‘ a forward move of interest and importance.’ Of interest—certainly of importance—we arc not so sure. It is the old, old dream of the union of the Churches rather, to be exact, of the union of what the Conference calls the ‘ evangelical ’ Churches.’ Needless to observe, the Catholic Church is not embraced in the definition; nor, sad to say, is the Anglican Church. In view of the friendly overtures which Anglicans have for some time past been making towards their dissenting brethren their unceremonious exclusion is distinctly unkind. The Conference decided first of all to take stepswhich are to be finally settled in the Conference of 1912 —for the fusion of the Primitive Methodists with the Wesleyan section of the Methodist family; and this is to prepare the way for a union of the evangelical Churches—as above definedand the establishment of one grand national Church. That the Primitive Methodist movement for union with the sister body, may secure such a relative success as was achieved by the divided and rival Methodist organisations in Australia some years ago, is highly probable; but that the wider movement for corporate reunion on an extended scale will succeed—in ever so modest a degree—is not even remotely probable. There is something pathetic in these almost countless efforts towards Protestant reunion— because they witness to the haunting sense of misery at division and disunion as being contrary to the will of Christ, and pathetic because of their invariable and inevitable failure, Protestantism,

as a recent convert writer remarks, is powerless to maintain unity of thought even among the members of a single family; and efforts at reunion between even two single Protestant denominations who have any doctrinal differences at all to begin with —there are none between Methodists and Primitive Methodists —are foredoomed to failure. We remember how, only a few years ago, a movement was afoot m Dunedin for bringing about the organic union of the Presbyterian and Congregational bodies of New Zealand. As far back as 1691 heads of agreement’ were drawn up between the two sections into which the English Congregationalism of the time was dividedthe Presbyterians and the Congregationalists of the Savoy platform. ihe arrangement, however, did not work smoothly, and was soon abandoned. In 1801 a working union was effected between the Presbyterians and the Congregationalists of Connecticut, in reference to the formation of churches in new settlements. The Congregationalists, however, found that it operated to their disadvantage, and they dissolved the partnership in 1852. Of the New Zealand movement, which began so promisingly some seven years ago, nothing is now heard; and the ambitious scheme of our 1 rimitive Methodist friends for a grand ‘ national ’ Church which shall include all the so-called ‘ evangelical bodies is only too surely destined to go the same way. ♦

Catholics, strong in the strength of their unbroken unity,, view with friendly interest the efforts made by their separated brethren •of every creed to bridge over those differences which make Christianity a stumbling block and a subject of mockery, not only to the heathen but to large masses of thinking people nearer home. It is true that such movements are little likely to succeed in their immediate purpose. _ But they will serve to emphasise the essential and vital importance of unity, and will tend to leaven the masses of our separated brethren with a truer conception of the meaning of ‘one Fold and one Shepherd,’ one Lord, one faith, one baptism.’ And the Church is sure to be the gainer. Her gain would be infinitely greater if in their search for unity, our friends would get down to the root of the doctrinal disruption which rends 1 rotestant Christendom; and would squarely face and adequately deal with the principle which has been, and is, the direct cause of all their interminable divisions—namely Uie system of forming their religion on ‘the Bible and the Bible only, interpreted by each individual according to ins own lights. Erasmus remarked in his day that ‘the interpretation of the Scriptures by individual minds has level ended in anything but laming texts which walked perfectly straight before.’ In the second volume of his Rationalism m Europe, Lecky says (p. 174): ‘lt has been most abundantly proved that from Scripture honest and no-t n/tl laVe d erive d, and d? derive, arguments in suppoit of the most opposite opinions.’ And thus Whitaker’ Almanack for 1900 was able to enumerate 274 religious denominations in England alone; and the Times, in a lead'll a!? 0 ! 6 V 1 lts . lssue of January 13, 1884, could say that sects" 1 each rioM iis reputed to contain some seven hundred sects each of whom proves a whole system of theology and Sto T the Bibe -- The P rinci P le ™ntioned g above r? > G t°re ,n reli P°- n - , And the summing of it all Jp. 'etaS IS no logical resting-place between an infallible church and no-church.

The Education Question in the British Elections +i, One cannot help being impressed in reading through the literature of the Home elections—with the frank and open reference the part of many candidates to what s known as the Education Question,’ and with the convotesa Tt W l . w° n f ow " t 0 the Catholic and Irish tes. It is true that such references came more from one political party than another; but, on one ground or other Irish voter made °i en an i d dlreCt appeal to Catholi c and IJioZ as such ’ and no candidate appeared in the leas o to feel— as our political worthies in this part of flic world seem to do—that the heavens would fall if they dared cxpr( : ss unqualified and unequivocal approval of the denominational principle. ' Here are one or two samples of the appeals issued to the electors by various candidates ct r we take at random from the advertising cohnnns of the Catholic Times. We give first the appealto thToid ham electors both from the Liberal and from the t side. From the Liberals; ‘To the Catholic and B electors of Oldham.—Mr. John Redmond says that the great and smash the veto.’ From the candidate: ‘ To the Catholic and Irish electors of Oldham.— I a.m earnestly in favor of religious education in 7 schools and the right of parents to Invo +1 -* 1 °un i day taught the faith they believe in by teacher^, L cllldren what they teach. Religion is the chief A j belleVe society, and the only sure basis of the formation of charaS

ter. I will not barter it away, but will oppose to the utmost a Government which wishes to shut out religion from the schools and the State.E. R. Bartley Denniss.' From the second candidate: ' With regard to education, I would earnestly advocate the encouragement and the enhancement of moral training and the imparting of a solid foundation of religious teaching (of whatever denomination), for without religion a child has no moral standards to go by. — Arthur E. Wrigley.' Then a united appeal from both candidates : ' Catholics, protect your schools by voting for Denniss and Wrigley.' Let us take next the Abercromby Division of the City of Liverpool, and here again we will give extracts both from the Liberal and from the Conservative appeals. Liberal candidate: ' I am a member of the Church of England and a supporter of the Temperance movement, and on the education question I have always held the view that every parent should have the right of educating his child in his own religion.' Conservative candidate : ' Last, but not least, the question of safeguarding to our people their right to have their children taught the religion of their fathers, and by those who believe in what they teach, is one upon which I confidently. appeal to the electors of the Abercromby Division for a renewal of their confidence and support.' And here are a few miscellaneous samples—selected chiefly on account of their brevity—of a very large number available: ' Darwen Division. — Catholics, work and vote for Hindle, who still stands by his promise to support the Catholic schools. He has voted for eliminating the objectionable clauses in the Coronation Oath.' Catholics of East Manchester.—Vote for Proby. Mr. Proby says: " I-support religious education for children in the faith of their fathers."' 'To the electors of the Ince Division. — education I advocate, and will support, only such measures as will enable parents to have their children taught such religious faith as they desire during school hours, and by teachers who believe such faith.' * That is in England. It means that there is a reasonable and healthy public opinion on this great question, and that Catholics are a power to be reckoned with. And in New Zealand—how do matters stand ? If we would realise how vast is the gulf which separates us from the splendid position achieved by our co-religionists in England, let us conjure up a vision of the transformation there would be if we woke up some fine morning and found New Zealand candidates expressing such sentiments as those quoted above, and announcing their determination to stand by them. We wouldn't know ourselves, or our country still less our candidates there would be new heavens and a new earth.' The population of England and Wales is, approximately, thirty-two and a half millions; and the number of Catholics is estimated at two and a half millions, so that the latter are one in thirteen of the population. In New Zealand we are one in seven, so that relatively to the whole population we are just about twice as numerous as our co-religionists in England. What the Catholics in England have effected should be twice as easy of accomplishment for us, seeing that we have, proportionately, twice their numbers. The measure of their advance is the measure of our falling behindhand such falling behind is entirely to our shame. to Catholics and Criminal Statistics : An Admission Over and over again, in refuting the hoary calumny that there is a disproportionate., amount of crime amongst Catholics as compared with other religious bodies, the N.Z. Tablet has maintained and insisted on the absolute worthlessness and unreliability of the ordinary gaol and Year-Booh statistics on the subject. These statistics are not only gravely defective—making no discrimination between the gravity of the various crimes and making no allowance for a number of other vitally important factors—but they are also hopelessly incorrect. How could they possibly be accurate and reliable, seeing that they are based, wholly and solely, on the unchallenged and unverified non-oath statements of convicted persons—many of them criminals whose uncorroborated oaths would not be accepted in any court of justice in the Dominion? The truth of our contention in this matter has now been franklv admitted by the compilers of the Government Official Year-Book, and for the future—' purely in the interest of accuracy'—the figures relating to the denominational returns of crime are to be incontinently dropped from that useful publication. m The discovery of this action and attitude on the part of the authorities was made in a very simple, almost accidental, way. Some few weeks ago a controversy on this now somewhat hackneyed topic was begun in the columns of the Wellington Evening Post. It originated, if we remember, rightly, in a letter containing some disparaging remarks, in connection with the alleged preponderance of Catholic criminals, written by a Protestant clergyman The

Rev. C. J. Venning, S.M., took up the gauntlet; a number of secularists and others cut in; and in a very short time, as the war correspondents put it, ‘ the fighting became general.’ In the course of the battle the enemy cast about for the latest statistics to throw at Father Venning’s head; but, to their disgust, found that the Year-Book for 1910 just issuedhad omitted the usual tables giving the religious denominations of convicted prisoners. At once it was suggested that ‘“Rome” had been at work, and had got the unpleasant figures suppressed!’ Immediate inquiries made by the Evening Post at the RegistrarGeneral’s office showed that there was not a scintilla of truth in the suggestion. We quote from our contemporary of January 13, allowing the Post representative and the editor of the ear-Book to speak for themselves. ‘lnquiries made in the proper quarter to-day,’ says our contemporary, ‘ showed that the reason for dropping the table above referred to was that when investigations were made into the matter it was found that the information in the tables was unsound. Prisoners charged several times gave different religions. For example, John Jones would be a Catholic when convicted of one offence, and say a Primitive Methodist, an Anglican, or a Baptist on another occasion. . . The editor of the Year-Book (Mr. W. M. Wright), on being seen with reference to the omission, said it was purely voluntary in the interest of accuracy, there was absolutely no influence of any kind brought to boar upon the matter. It was done in order to avoid anything leading to controversy that could not be supported by facts. he prison authorities recognise three religions—viz. Protestants, Roman Catholics, and- Jews. For reasons of their own, prisoners are known to change their religion according to circumstances, such as the strength of the leligious body or bodies who include gaol visiting in their institutional work, the faith of the master or gaoler or even of the visiting justices. Prisoners seem to think, rightly or wrongly, that they will receive a certain amount of consideration on account of the faith they profess if it squares with that of persons official or non-official authorities or visitors.’ Here we have a most important and valuable admission—the editor of the Year-Book finding when investigations were made into the matter,’ and frankly acknowledging that the figures in the ‘official ’ tables are so incorrect and unreliable for purposes of comparison that £*££*• of " CCUrat} ' " 11 is uecessary

. Ike Evening Post, in an editorial on the subject, in which it somewhat illogically suggests that so long as the figures v 6 collected they ought to be published in the Official 1 ear-Book, frankly admits their inaccuracy and the utter worthlessness of any conclusions that might be based upon them. ' The statistical question/ it says, 'which lias cropped up in connection with the discussion in our columns of the relative merits of secular and religious education is decidedly interesting. Disputants have hitherto been able to turn to the Official Year-Book for whatever light could be obtained for controversies of this kind from the proportions contributed by the various denominations to the prison population of the country. But the 1910 1 ear-Book withholds this information for the first time As the figures played a prominent part in a discussion which attracted a good deal of attention last year, the omission has naturally been attributed to the influence of the party against which the figures seemed to tell. It is therefore, satisfactory to have the assurance of the editor hvouli toiSj* at i"° inflUenCe of any ki " d had been b ought to bear upon him in connection with the matter The omission was purely voluntary, and it was carried out are the interest of accuracy." Such erroneous conclusions arc drawn from figures which necessarily fail to cover the whole ground, that the editor deemed it advisable to om? them altogether. As the explanation which we pubhsHn h?mselT a C R 11 Sll °7 J "i Pl ' iSol l may -retimes dec are himself as of one sect and sometimes of another In some cases o a faith of the religious body which is most atten! tive to a particular prison may be assumed for the time by an inmate in order to get the benefit of that body's and'th? work f r i ei i e P" Certa i Causes of «™r" and the work of deducting conclusions from the facts, even if correctly ascertained, is full of pitfalls.' That has been the contention of the N.Z. Tablet from first to lastTn this criminal statistics controversy, and it is highly gratifying now to have it thus officially and authoritatively confirmed: J e HA t odd lat the editor of the Year-Book-Mr. W. M. right— in the interests of accuracy, has made the innovation above-mentioned, is not a Catholic. » It is also highly satisfactory to learn that the AttorneyGeneral through Mr Waldegrave (Police Commissioner), has sent notice to all the gaols to the effect that every care is to be taken by inquiries and other means to see that prisoners do not make false entries as to religion

Also to let such offenders know that they will be liable to forfeit good marks, etc., while in prison.’ This is undoubtedly a step in the right direction, and one for which the Attorney-General is to be commended. In order to do complete and even-handed justice all round, it is only necessary that Dr. Findlay should carry the matter one stage further, and make the practice of false declaration of religious belief on the part of prisoners a punishable offence by Act of Parliament. That will come in time, if we keep hammering away; and when it does come, if the criminal statistics tables are continued, they will tell a very different tale.