Notes

New Zealand Tablet, 26 January 1911, Page 156

Notes

« Priest-Ridden' The Missionary quotes this interesting item, which our readers might do worse than pigeon-hole :— < " Priestridden is a favorite metaphor of Godless demagogues who represent Catholic people as groaning under the incubus of innumerable clergymen. Sometimes it is applied to the Catholics of the United States. Store up for future use the following percentages deduced from the recent Census Report on religions: The percentage of ministers of the Methodist Church is U 69 Baptist, .007; Presbyterian, .068; Episcopalian, .006; Christian Scientist, .014- all the Protestant bodies combined, .007. The Catholic percentage of clergymen is 001.' In other words, Protestant bodies in the United States have-relatively to their numerical strength-exactly seven times as many clergymen to rule them as 'priest-ridden' Catholics have. A Sleepy Congregation How to liven up a sleepy congregation must be something of a problem to preachers in these hot mid-summer clays. It is on record how a pastor of the old school once accomplished the feat-effectively, and yet without giving offence. It was a very warm day, and the church closely packed, Ihe pastor observed, with some annoyance, many of the congregation nodding and sleeping in their seats whilst he was preaching. He took his measures accordingly, and introduced the word 'hyperbolical' into his sermon Then he paused, and said, 'Now, my friends some of you may not understand this word hyperbolical--11l explain it. Suppose that I were to say that this congregation were all asleep in this church at the present time I would be speaking hyperbolically; because (looking round) I don't believe much more than one-half of you are sleeping.' The effect was instantaneous. Those who were nodding recovered themselves and nudged their sleepand?tW° rSS and the Preacher went on to an awakened and attentive congregation. * Is it Home Rule*

Me learn from English papers just to hand that enorWhat m m r | 18 n ° W being manifested in the question, Vhat will happen if the fords’ Veto is abolished ?—and on

every hand the query is being raised: ' Does it mean Home 'Rule .If the explicit pledges given by members of the Cabinet are to count for anything at all, there can only be one answer to the question. The query was definitely put to the Prime Minister during the election. At Fife he was asked: 'ls it the case that if the Liberal Party are returned on this occasion they intend to grant Ireland a measure of Home Rule?' Mr. Asquith replied: 'lt is. The next question was: 'Will Mr. Asquith explain in general terms the nature of the Home Rule Bill he proposes?' 'I refer the questioner,' he replied, 'to a speech I made a year ago at the Albert Hall, in which I explained, in very clear and, I think, definite terms, the general character of our proposal, and to which I entirely adhere.' Mr. Asquith, in his Albert Hall speech (December 11, 1909), had said: ' Speaking on behalf of the Government in March last year, a week before my accession to the office of Prime Minister, I described Ireland as the one undeniable failure of British statesmanship. I repeat here to-night what I said then, speaking on behalf of my colleagues, and I believe of my party, the solution of the problem can be found only in one way —by a policy which, while explicitly safeguarding the supreme and indefeasible authority of the Imperial Parliament, will set up in Ireland a system of full self-government in regard to purely Irish affairs. There is not, and there cannot be, any question of separation. There is not, and there cannot be, any question of rival or competing supremacies; but, subject to these conditions, that is the Liberal policy.' * Mr. Redmond's view of the situation in the new Parliament was plainly expressed in a speech made during election week at Rathmines: —' If the anti-House of Lords majority is a great and sweeping one, if it is made up of seats won from Tories, then immediately that Parliament meets on January 31 a Bill to abolish the Veto of the House of Lords will be introduced. It will be passed through the House of Commons very rapidly, it will go to the House of Lords, and if they refuse to pass it, then whatever steps are necessary to be taken to compel them will be taken.' * Mr. Lloyd George was even more explicit and emphatic than Mr. Asquith. He was asked at one of his meetings: ' If the Liberals are returned to power, when do they intend to introduce a Home Rule Bill and he replied At the first available moment.' 'As the Prime Minister has already declared,' he said, ' we have no intention of shirking Home Rule. It is absolutely essential for the efficiency of the Imperial Parliament. It is not merely extending self-government to Ireland. Wales wants self-government. Scotland wants self-government. England wants selfgovernment. We are treading on each other's toes in Parliament, and are not doing any work because the Imperial Parliament is attending to trivial matters which would be beneath the attention of many a county council. That is very bad business. After disposing of the Veto of the House of Lords, the first thing will be to reconstruct our present Imperial machinery in such a way as to make the House of Commons free to attend to the immense Imperial questions awaiting consideration.' And Mr. Churchill stands committed to the same view. What the Liberals now want to do,' he said, amongst other things, is to effect a settlement with Ireland, and to give the Irish the control of their-own purely Irish affairs, subject to the unquestioned supremacy of the Imperial Parliament. If they can secure a good national settlement with Ireland at this juncture, Great Britain will be secured an increase in the strength of the Empire, much more important than by half a dozen Dreadnoughts.'