Current Topics

New Zealand Tablet, 2 May 1912, Page 21

Current Topics

How ; 'Ulster' 'Fights' .. In company with many of our contemporaries we made merry over the notion that Ulster would fight, either on the occasion of Mr. Winston Churchill's recent meeting at —prior to which our Orange brethren were painting the papers red with' their threats of what would Happen if the meeting was persisted or even upon the establishment of Home Rule. We declared that all this tall talk was mere bluff, and that ' Ulster' had not the slightest intention of fighting. We now learn that we were wrong: Ulster ' had said it would fight, and it kept its word. The Dublin Leader thus describes how the great fight came off on the night of the day oh which Mr. Winston Churchill spoke in Belfast: ' The net result in the way of disturbance at Belfast after all was that a gang of Unionist (Orange) ruffians made an attack on—an hospital! Shortly after 10 o'clock at night a mob of Unionist miscreants attacked the Mater Infirmorum Hospital. A regular fusilade of rivets and large stones were thrown at the hospital. All honor to the brave ! How intrepid and fearless these Belfast Unionist hearts were as they fired rivets, not knowing but that at any moment a dying man, or a sick woman, might get up and fling, say, a square of soap at them. And then there was the gallant attack of one hundred girl Unionists on two Catholic fellow workers in a mill.' This display of 'Ulster's' valor was given after the Home Rule meetingwhich it had threatened to fight against and prevent— all over. . Sir Edward Carson is right. ' Ulster' will fightso long as it has nothing more formidable to face than squares of soap.

The Waihi Protest Some time ago we chronicled how Waihi Catholics asserted themselves in connection with platform attacks on Christianity that were being made in the district by certain political candidates; and once again they have come forward in defence and vindication of the faith. We gave a brief telegraphic summary of the facts in our issue of April 18, telling how. one of the leading Socialist lecturers, Mr. R. F. Way, came to Waihi to " reply ' to the Ven. Archdeacon Brodie's recent lecture on Ferrer; how the Archdeacon and many of his Catholic workers attended : how at the close of the lecture the Archdeacon demanded to be heard, mounted the platform, and literally ' riddled ' ' the lecturer —pointing out (what the latter admitted) that he had not seen a:iy note or report of the Archdeacon's lecture, and n.aking him look very small over his ignorance and misi representations of Catholic doctrine: and how the Archdeacon finally declared, amidst great applause, thai ...mless an apology were forthcoming for the way in jvfhich the Miners' Union platform had been used to tack the Catholic faith, he would advise Catholic mt mbers to withdraw from membership, and would form a Christian Workers' Union with the same industrial objects as the present organisation.

I Since our summary appeared Archdeacon Brodie pas been interviewed by one of the Auckland dailies, «jind we take the following further. particulars from his statement to the Auckland pressman. After indicating bhe general lines on which he had replied yto the reIjiash of McCabe’s book which constituted the staple of the Socialist lecturer’s address, the Archdeacon continued : _ In making these statements to the meeting assembled on Sunday night I received an excellent hearing. I told them that I resented and felt- keenly the attacks made that evening by the Socialist party against the beliefs of all religious sections of the community. I challenged anyone to prove that I personally had attacked anyone’s convictions, Socialist' or otherwise, during my eleven years’ residence in Waihi. I reminded the meeting that . . . these insults had been uttered from the platform of the Miners’ Union Hall, of which many Christian members were part owners! Yet it was being used on such occasions -as these for

the purposes of. directly insulting the religious beliefs of many members. In conclusion, I said that unless some explanation or apology were given, I was determined to bring about, the formation of a Christian Workers’ Union in which the members would be banded together for the uplifting of the worker, and in which the members would be perfectly free from attacks of such a description as had been heard that evening. There ■ the matter rests,’ concluded the Archdeacon, ‘ and if the. explanation or apology ; I have asked for is not forthcoming, I shall not hesitate, to act on the lines which I indicated at Sunday evening’s meeting.’

Archdeacon Brodie is fully entitled to' the congratulations which have been extended to him _by the Auckland Hibernians, by St. Benedict s ■ Club, and by several' southern papers, of whose comments the subject of them has probably never heard. It is to be noted that from first to last of the episode Archdeacon Brodie has acted, and is acting, purely on the defensive. If the Miners’ Union will see to it that speakers on its platform confine themselves to advocating measures for the economic and industrial betterment of the working classes and refrain from dragging religion into their addresses, Catholics will be the last to raise any factious opposition. But when a Socialist lecturer, who has been granted the use of a hall, free of charge, by a Union containing a large number of Christian members, takes advantage of the hospitality extended to him to indulge in wanton vituperation and abuse of the Christian religion, Christians would be flabby and spineless; indeed if they did not make protest. It may be added that the lecturer on this particular occasion has addressed a communication to the Auckland Star , as a sort of explanation and defence; but the letter is a very limp production, and is manifestly the work of one who has not yet recovered from the surprise packet he received. .

Catholics and Welsh Church Disestablishment Saturday's cables inform us that the Bill for the Disestablishment of the Church of England in Wales has passed its first reading in the House of Commons; and Mr. Lloyd: George appears to have indulged in some plain speaking on the occasion. 'He aroused the anger of. the Opposition,' says the cable, by stating that two-thirds of the Church's property at the Reformation went to laymen to bribe ( them to sell their faith, and those enjoying the endowments to-day called him a thief because he had tried to take back a halfpenny in the £.' The Bill contains a provision that the Church will, be permitted to retain any endowments conferred since the reformation/ but that endowments conferred before that time will be withdrawn and devoted to secular national purposes. According to the cable, sixty-eight Nationalists voted for the Bill" presumably on the broad ground of supporting the Government. ' .

There is room for difference of opinion as to the natural and proper attitude to be taken by Catholics op the question. There is, on the one hand, the view that to support the use of public money and endowments for the purposes of the Establishment is nothing less than encouraging heresy; and on the other hand, there is the view, voiced by the London Tablet, that ‘ to apply the money as it has been applied for three hundred years for the maintenance of Anglican clergymen is at least closer to the wishes of the (Catholic) donors than would be its use for the support of rural art galleries or provincial museums or any other : purely secular purpose.’ In this connection it is interesting to recall the view and policy adopted by the late Cardinal Manning, as expressed in a manifesto issued to the Catholic electors at the time of the Disestablishment campaign in 1885. ' ‘lf the Catholic Church,’ wrote his Eminence, ‘ could to-morrow extinguish the Establishment by gathering the millions of the people - into its fold by its spiritual and pastoral action, every Catholic would desire that this work of grace might be accomplished before sunset; but to join in a political agitation, in union with multitudes animated by all

kinds of animosities against Christianity, and with men, many of whom believe nothing of the truths of revelation, is in itself a revolutionary action, directly tending to destroy what remains of Christian belief among the people, and that, too, while we are absolutely incapable, by the paucity of our numbers and the narrowness of our material resources, to take up, at this time, the work of tending: and folding the people of this land. If the use of the Established Churches of this country be regarded in no other light than as elementary catechetical schoolsarid they are, indeed, a great deal more— ‘ have sustained and are sustaining a large measure, though sadly mutilated, of our Christian traditions, nevertheless, even as catechetical schools, together with the large system of Christian education maintained by them, they ought not to be hindered in their action by revolutionary measures, much less ought they to be rudely destroyed. Cranmer, Ridley, and Knox mutilated the Christian tradition of England three hundred years ago; it is not for the Catholics of England to mutilate it still further now.’

. That, it must be admitted, is a generous attitude to take. In regard to the endowments question, we think we could suggest a simple and fair solution, if only a statesman could be found with sufficient courage to father our proposal. We would suggest that the endowments clause should read thus: The Church of England will be permitted to retain any endowments conferred since the “ reformation,” but all endowments conferred before that time shall be withdrawn and handed over to the Church from which they were wrongfully taken away.’ Even the intrepid Chancellor himself would not be bold enough to submit such a proposal to a British House of Commons but it would be an absolutely just proposition all the same.

The 'Encyclopedia Britannica' Now that this publication is being boomed in New Zealand, and the. public, by means of spacious advertisements and circular letters, are being bombarded with * invitations to purchase, it may be opportune to remind our readers of the criticisms on the Britannica which were published in our columns some six months ago, in respect to its treatment of religious, and particularly of Catholic subjects. Outside of its handling of these particular subjects, we have nothing to say. In regard to subjects into 'which religious or personal bias does not enter, it goes without saying that such a colossal publication must contain a vast mine of invaluable information. But with Catholics who are not compelled by their avocation to possess such works of reference the .religious question will be the paramount one and, as we have already shown, the treatment of Catholic subjectsexcept in : the relatively few cases in which they have been placed in Catholic hands—biassed, inaccurate, unscholarly, and offensive. To the quotations already given it will suffice, for our present purpose, to add the ? following few further specimens of the ignorance and unfairness shown, and the unnecessarily insulting language used,' where Catholic matters are concerned: : ;~; «■ ";- -■> « /"The. water must in ritual washings run off in order to carry away the miasma or unseen demon of disease; and, : accordingly, %in baptism the' early Christians used living or running water." "In all religions, and especially in the Brahmanic and Christian, the cathartic virtue of water is enhanced by the introduction into it by means of -suitable prayers and incantations of a divine or magical power."- (Conybeare, "Ablution, 1., 66). ?; „< o j-m ;;• ;n o-\ - ,'"He [Luther] professed to .rest all upon Scripture, yet accepted from the : Babylon of Rome a baptism neither scriptural nor primitive' (Idem, "Anabaptist " 1., 904). -,.,; .-...-■ I -.".»•■■• •' ■ ■- r ' .;'. ' Of.equal importance was their [the Concordats'] work in : freeing Austria from the control of the Church which i checked s the :intellectual life of the people ? (Phillips, "Austria-Hungary," III.; 28). '"'• ' ' heir [the Greek Cynics'] zeal for renunciation often extended not to pleasures, marriage, and property alone, but to cleanliness, knowledge, and good manners

as well, and in this respect also they were the forerunners of later monks (Conybeare, “Asceticism/’ 11., 719). ' “The baals are not to be regarded necessarily as local variations of one and the same god, like the many Virgins or Madonnas of Catholic lands (Robinson and Arthur, “ Baal,” 111., 88).; . " / ‘ ‘ “The treasures of classical history and poetry were at the mercy of monks, too lazy or too ignorant to use, or even to preserve them” (Hueffer, “Boccaccio,” IV., 103).

‘ “Fish were supposed to be born in the water without sexual connection, and on the basis ,of this old physiological fallacy.the Cathars equally with the Catholics framed' their rule of fasting” (Conybeare, “Cathars,” V., 516). . ;; ; ‘ “Though the people of Geneva had cast off the obedience of Rome, it was largely a political revolt against the Duke of Savoy, and they were still (says Beza) ‘ but very imperfectly enlightened in divine knowledge; they had yet hardly emerged from the filth of the papacy’” (Alexander and Grieve, “Calvin,” V., 73). • _ . ‘ “But on the accession of Henry IV., the king who knew his worth, and was confident that although he was a Catholic he might rely on his fidelity ” (“Castelnau, Michel de,” V., 473, article unsigned).’ ‘ “One can readily understand the popularity of the Crusades, when one reflects that they permitted men to get to the other world by fighting hard on earth, and allowed them to gain the fruits of asceticism by the ways of hedonism” (Barker, “Crusades,” VII 524, 525).’ ■ ’ ’’ / “A mock mass was begun, during which the lections were read cum farsia, obscene songs were sung and dances performed, cakes and sausages eaten at the altar, and cards and dice played upon it .... etc.’’ ( * Fools, Feast of,” X., 616, article unsigned).’ . * “The Church shared the universal belief that holiness or the holy spirit is quasi-material and capable of being held in suspense in water, just as sin is a half material infliction, absorbed and carried away by it” (Conybeare, “ Holy Water,” XIII., 623,)/ In the article on ‘Mary,’ we are told regarding the Blessed .Virgin: ‘Of her parentage nothing is recorded in any extant document of the first century. • _ • • She became the mother of Jesus Christ and afterwards had other children.’ These quotations speak for themselves; and no amount of white-washing can explain them away. °

Here, as elsewhere, the name of the Cambridge University is paraded in the forefront of the advertisements and circular letters; and the statement is expressly made that the work ‘ was issued last year by the University of Cambridge.’ As a matter of fact it was published by the Syndics or Committee of the University Press; and was in no sense the.work of the University as a body. Against the misrepresentation involved in the unqualified statement just quoted, seven members, of the University Senate have made a formal protest, portion of which we reproduce: ‘lt (the publication of the Britannica) has been represented as the direct act of the University in its corporate capacity. Statements have been put forward that the University has undertaken the publication as part of a definite educational policy, and the prefatory note prefixed to the first volume, and dated from Cambridge, suggests to anyone, who is not acquainted with the facts, that the University is responsible for the preparation and production of the work.- We believe that the reputation of the University has been injured by the representations which have been made, that this reputation has suffered and is suffering by the methods taken to advertise the work, and on these grounds we enter our protest It is significant that when the time for a fresh election of Syndics came round, not one of the Syndics concerned in the publication of the Britannica was nominated for re-election. • britannica,

Home Rule and the Fiscal Question _ The cables tell us that the Irish Convention, sitting in Dublin, have accepted the Home Rule Bill 'amid

the greatest enthusiasm and the unfurling of the green flag of Ireland.’ , Mr. Redmond told the Convention, with perfect truth, that ' the Bill was the greatest and most satisfactory one that had ever been offered. them,’ and added that they would be a nation of fools not to accept the measure. On this point’ as to the wisdom or otherwise of accepting the present Bill, Mr. Redmond is the best judge within the Empire; because he, of all Irishmen, has the best opportunity of knowing what are the practical possibilities of , the case. In the last —within certain limits lrishmen must accept what they can get; and in view of the fact that the present Bill is an immense advance on ' any of its predecessors, they would, as Mr. Redmond says, be a nation of fools hot to accept) the measure. A general acceptance of the Bill,„however, does not necessarily imply approval of all the details, nor ,an endorsement of the Bill as the best of all possible bills; and it would seem to be the plain duty of Irishmen to say out quite clearly what they want and why they want it, even if, for the present, they have to be content with something less than their full demand. Mr. Redmond, we are told, , ‘ insisted that the Bill’s finance, was far better than either of its predecessors.’ That is perfectly true; but we still hold that-the financial proposals fall materially short of the ideal, and of what Ireland is fairly and reasonably entitled to ask.

Confirmation of this view comes to us from many quarters. The report of the General Council of the Irish County Councils,’ according to a Press Association message, says that the financial clauses 7 of the Home Rule Bill are unsatisfactory,- and need drastic amendment. The minimum demand must include Ireland’s retention of all her taxes, subject to a 9 per cent, contribution to Great Britain, and the Irish Parliament must control all the Irish services,’ The Convention itself, while generally accepting the scheme, ‘ decided to leave the question of the amendment of the Bill in the hands of a party of three ; and from Mr. Redmond’s references to finance, it may be safely inferred that the fiscal proposals will be one of the first features of the Bill to engage the attention of the amending committee. But perhaps the most weighty corroboration of the view that complete fiscal autonomy ought to be aimed at and pressed for in any Home Rule scheme that might be submitted, is furnished by Mr. Erskine Childers, author of that magnificent work, The Framework of Home Hide, and one of the greatest, if not the very greatest, authority of the day on the subject of Irish finance. In a very fine lecture report of which is just to hand-delivered at a meeting of the Young Ireland Branch of the United Irish League held at Dublin on March 2, Mr. Childers stands out strongly for the ideal of a self-supporting Ireland. He is quite familiar with the considerations that are urged in favor of compromise; and he states them quite fairly and frankly, Are we,’.he asks, ‘to abandon or to revive the old ideal of a self-supporting Ireland ? Of course, there are waysand very easy and tempting ' ways— of evading the question,' of avoiding a straight answer, yes or no. It is quite possible to say ‘we will assume responsibility for most of Irish expenditure, but not for all. Some of it has been forced

apon us by Great Britain, and it is properly a British liability which Great Britain- should continue to discharge.’ Or it is possible, leaving that point nebulous, i-o say “some costly services, such as the Police, the Commission, and even a part of Old Age Pensions will diminish with time. Any assistance we receive towards them will be terminable, and will mean no loss of self-respect, or any serious financial embarrassment in the future.’ Both of those arguments were heard of in 1893, but then they were academical, because Ireland, with or without British assistance, was a solvent State. Or, borrowing a plea: from modern Unionism,, us accept money from Great Britain, but regard it as a productive investment' which will eventually raise our revenue-producing capacity, and so enable us, in the far future, to restore our solvency.’ Again, putting solvency completely into the background, we can say We have been beggared in the past by

Great Britain.. It is only just and right that she should make restitution.” ’ We can adopt any one of these plausible theories, we can make any combination or permutation of them we please, or incorporating all of them in one confused patchwork without any . regard to consistency or principle, we can say, “Ireland _ v is poor, England is rich. Let us get all we can out of England now and for all time.” ’

While not denying a certain plausibility in these considerations, Mr, Childers uncompromisingly brushes them aside when it comes to the practical issue.' ‘ Now I am far from saying that there may not be an honest difference of opinion on the central issue. What I want to urge to-night is, that Irishmen, sweeping away all sophistries, pretences, 1 and ‘ prevarications, should come to a clear decision, and I for my part exhort them, whatever the contravention of abstract justice, and whatever the temporary embarrassment, with clear vision and firm will, unequivocally to re-endorse the old principle that Ireland should pay her own way.’ Mr. Childers insists on the ideal of a self-supporting Ireland, because responsibility for expenditure necessarily carries with it responsibility for taxationin other words, it necessarily involves complete fiscal control ; for to say that Ireland must live within her income but to place the sources of that income outside her control would be manifestly absurd And the arguments for fiscal autonomy Mr. Childers thus effectively summarises: ‘ You all know what fiscal autonomy means. Customs and Excise other) words/.-mdirect taxation— more than 70 per cent, of Irish Revenue as now raised. To exclude them from Irish control would be not only to expose Ireland to great danger of some tariff framed in future to suit British interests, but what is more important, to cripple the power of Irish statesmen to make that thorough financial and administrative organisation which the idea of a' selfsupporting Irelandto say nothing of the ordinary dictates of wise social policydemand. This is at bottom a very simple matter, and for my part I admit that I see little hope of any sound compromise. ; With the unanimous conclusions of the Royal Commission ,of 1894-6 before them, still unassailed and unassailable; it is amazing that any .Government planning a Home) Rule scheme should seek to retain Ireland, to the extent of three-quarters of her revenue, under the same fiscal system as before. The question of “over taxation ” we may leave out of account. In whatever terms the consequences be expressed, the central fact established by the Commission, and never since seriously questioned, was that Ireland; and Great Britain were not and never had been fit subjects for the same fiscal system. Judged by every conceivable test, they were different organisms, different in movement vof population, in wealth, standard of living, habits, rates of wages, industrial distribution, agrarian distribution all the essential points which dictate the scale, range,, and character of taxation. These differences are just as great now, and in some respects greater than before. . . . The profound difference between the two islands formed the basis of the unanimous Report of the Royal Commission. : There were only two remedies, the first a fallacious remedy spend more on Ireland, so as to compensate for unjust and unsuitable taxation; the other, proposed by Lords - Welby and Farrar, to give .. Ireland Home Rule with fiscal autonomy. The first was adopted, and .has led to the present unwholesome and intolerable situation. The second still remains the right and only remedy.’ It seems .probable that Ireland may have to accept, for the present, something short of the scheme so ably, sketched by Mr, Childers; . but it may be hoped, at least', that the present settlement will contain within itself the principles that may ultimately develop to such an ideal. .-