Current Topics

New Zealand Tablet, 18 December 1913, Page 21

Current Topics

The Government and Home Rule The bitterest enemy of the Liberal Government can hardly charge them with failing to display a spirit of conciliation in connection with the Irish question and a willingness to give full consideration to any definite and rational proposals that may be advanced by the representatives of dissident and disloyal ' Ulster.' The danger is, indeed, that in their desire to secure a settlement by consent the Government may carry their policy of ' sweet reasonableness' to a point that is really not reasonable, and may offer concessions which would fatally compromise the whole scheme of Home Rule.. To talk, as one member, of the Cabinet has done, of totally excluding ' Ulster ' from the scope of the Home Rule Bill is, as another member of the Cabinet has pointed out, an evasion and not a solution of the problem. And wholesale offers to allow 'Ulster' 'full control of its own administration and police, as well as of its own religious and educational matters ' are surely quite unnecessary in view of the very ample guarantees and safeguards already provided in the Bill. Any concessions that would strengthen or give permanence to the separatist spirit and policy of ' Ulster ' must prove inimical to the Home Rule scheme, and arc certainly to bo deprecated.

But while the Government have shown themselves if anything over-anxious in the matter of coming to terms with Sir Edward Carson and his following, they have made it perfectly clear that if ' Ulster' refuses to be reconciled the Government are determined to carry Home Rule through at whatever cost. This has been the key-note of every recent Ministerial utterance. First, we had Mr. Churchill's plain declaration a couple of months ago at Dundee: 'The Government intend to stand firm against a bully's veto more arbitrary than the veto of the Crown, which was abolished 300 years ago. The elections of 1910 gave the Government the fullest authority, and it is intended to act on that mandate.' A- fortnight later we had the straight-for-ward statement made by Mr. Asquith in his notable Ladybank speech: ' We shall not be intimidated by the threat of force. I hope and believe that Home Rule will be brought into operation without recourse to the armed forces of the Crown, but if a deliberately enacted statute is met by organised and armed resistance it will clearly be the duty of the Executive to assert the authority of the law by appropriate and adequate measures.' And now there comes an admirably clear and equally emphatic utterance from Sir Edward Grey. Close on the heels of Mr. Asquith's meeting, Sir Edward, as reported in English files just to hand, addressed his constituents as follows: ' Though a settlement by consent is infinitely preferable to failing to get consent, and to the prospect of bloodshed and coercion, I consider that we are not only entitled but bound to proceed with our Home Rule Bill. I say to the Ulstermen that if we take them seriously, they must take us seriously too. They must understand that we mean business; that we consider it absolutely essential, whether it be from the Irish point of view, or the i British point of view, or the Imperial point of view, / to put Irish affairs in the hands of Irishmen themthat we have produced a Bill which is our plan for doing that, for relieving this country of a great political disability, and relieving it of a most continuous question : that we will do all we . can within reason to meet Ulster apprehensions, but that, if they are unreasonable and no compromise is possible, we believe that we must spare no effort and neglect no means to carry the thing through. . . If violence is to be used to resist Home Rule in order that the existing state of things may be maintained, then you must meet violence by violence.' Those are serious words; but the time has fully'come for plainness of speech on this question, and it may be hoped that the very seriousness of Sir Edward Grey's declaration as

to what is in store for a seditious and rebellious 'Ulster ' may help Sir Edward Carson and his deluded followers to realise the madness and folly of the criminal agitation in which they are engaged. V J DO The Referendum and Religious Education in Switzerland It has become the fashion of late amongst Bible League apologists to hark back to the history and example of Switzerland as a justification and vindication of the referendum, and even as establishing a cogent precedent for its use on a religious question. Thus the Rev. Canon Garland, in a special article contributed to the Outlook of November 11, remarks:. ' The home of the referendum is in Switzerland, where the Constitution of 1874, Article 89, provides for what is known as the Initiative—in other words, a request from a section of the population for a particular piece of legislation in the form of a proposition made to the people as the supreme legislative power.' The suitability of the referendum (he' continues) for settling the question of religious instruction was recognised when ' Switzerland, in 1882, took a referendum upon a proposal to remove religious instruction from the schools; a vast petition was drawn up; within a short time 180,995 signatures was appended (proportionately the signatures already available in New Zelaand are greater) ; the referendum was taken, and since then the question has remained finally settled.' *

Professor Hunter, of Victoria College,' Wellington, has drawn attention to the actual working of the system thus established, as the result of which there will probably be something of a slump in the fashion of quoting Switzerland as a bright and shining example of what the referendum can accomplish in such a connection. He addressed a letter on the subject to the Outlook, which was refused insertion by our Presbyterian contemporary, but which has since appeared in the columns of the Dunedin livening Star. Referring to the example of Switzerland as thus quoted by Canon Garland, he remarks: ‘ Let any unprejudiced person take the last (the 11th) edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, article “Switzerland”; let him read the article dispassionately, particularly with reference to this religious question. I do not think that anyone so informed will consider the state of things that exists there desirable. The Constitution of 1874, to which Canon Garland refers, forbids Jesuits and affiliated Orders to settle in Switzerland ; provides that new bishoprics must be approved by the federal authority; places the ban on new religious Orders. In all the Cantons except Geneva there are one or more “ established ” churches. Geneva relieved itself of this burden in 1907, and, logically enough, this canton has the best educational system. On pages 244 an 3 245 of' the article referred to I find these illuminating words : “ Religious tests prevail as to teachers, who must declare the religion they profess, and are required to impart the religious instruction in the school, this being compulsory on the children professing the religion that is in the majority in that particular commune; consequently a Protestant teacher would never be appointed in a Romanist school, or vice versa. The religious teaching occupies an hour (always at the beginning of the school hours) thrice a week, while special dogmatic instruction is imparted by the pastor outside the school hours, as a rule, or in a room specially set apart therein. The pastor is ex officio president of the schulkommission (school committee), while the religious teaching in school is based on a special “ school Bible,” containing short versions of the chief events in Bible history.” If this be the normal result of the application of the referendum to religious issues, the people of this country will, I trust, have none of it.’ When opponents of the unjust scheme of the Bible in State Schools League point to the fact that its adoption would inevitably result in a religious test being imposed upon the public school teachers, they are accused of raising a bogey ; but the experience of Switzerland shows that there is here no bogey but a

very real difficulty, and demonstrates that the teachers of New Zealand, who, as public officers paid out of the public funds, desire to retain their freedom and rights of conscience, are justified to the full in their opposition to the League’s proposals.

The « Ritual Murder ' Charge A few weeks ago we referred at length to the fact that the supreme voice of Catholic authority has consistently condemned the cruel blood accusations against the Hebrew people which have been revived in connection with the Beiliss trial at Kieff; and we cited in detail the several Bulls of Pope Innocent IV. and other Papal documents in which the charge of ritual murder against the Jews was described as a downright calumny. It only remains to bring our evidence up to date by placing on record the latest utterance from the Vatican on the subject, from which it may be clearly inferred that the attitude of the Holy See remains what it has always been— of uncompromising repudiation of the charge. It appears that in the course of the trial at KiefF some prominence was given to the evidence of one of the witnesses for the prosecution whose name was given as Father Pranaitis, and who was described sometimes as a Catholic priest and sometimes as a Catholic Diocesan of Turkestan Province. He was reported as having made an affidavit in which he said he could not find the alleged previous condemnations of the ritual murder charge made by the Catholic Church, including the special letter of Pope Innocent IV. declaring the superstition a 'baseless and wicked invention.' He therefore expressed the opinion that the published texts of these condemnations were probably forgeries.

Thereupon Baron Rothschild, writing from London, addressed a lengthy and courteous letter to Cardinal Merry del Val, Secretary of State at the Vatican, gratefully acknowledging the enlightened and generous attitude which had been traditional with the Holy See towards the Jews and asking for an authoritative statement regarding the assertion alleged to have been made by Father Pranaitis. ‘lt is upon this point,’ he wrote, that I desire to invoke the gracious intervention of your Eminence. The question is one of authenticating the published texts of the Letter of his Holiness, Pope Innocent IV., and of the report of Cardinal Ganganelli, the originals or official records of which are no doubt m your Eminence’s custody. Of the texts so far as they are known to me I have the honour to enclose copies herewith. In forwarding the correspondence to the press Lord Rothschild explained that the documents which he submitted to Cardinal Merry del Val were copies of an Encyclical issued by Pope Innocent IV. in 1247 and quoted from Raynald’s Annales Ecclesiastici, and of an elaborate report dealing with all known cases of alleged ritual murder, drawn up by Cardinal Ganganelli, afterwards Rope Clement XIV., in 1758. The Encyclical emphatically declares the charge against the Jews to be false, and points out that the belief that it is warranted by Jewish teaching ’s totally unfounded. Cardinal Ganganelli’s report, which was occasioned by a trial very similar to the Beiliss case, and in which, curiously enough, the then ecclesiastical authorities of Kieff were concerned, not only decided against the prosecution in that case, but reviewed many other cases and expresses the opinion that in all except two there was absolutely no evidence of Jewish guilt'. In regard to the two exceptions the Cardinal’s opinion was doubtful, and he declared that in any case they could have no compromising bearing on Jewish teaching in gemral. On the general question of the possibility of ritual murders among Jews, he held that the Encyclical of Innocent IV. and similar Encyclicals of Gregory IX. and Gregory X. were conclusive. Finally he Appealed to the many Bulls and Encyclicals of other Popes extending protection to the Jews as evidence that the Church could never have believed that Judaism countenanced ritual murder.

Cardinal Merry del Val's reply was as follows : ' Segreteria di Sua Santita, October 18, 1913. My Lord,—ln reply to your letter of October 7, I am in a position to certify that the typewritten copy of Ganganelli's report to the Consultors of the. Holy Office is substantially authentic. lam able to give you this assurance after inquiries made at the Holy Office, where the original document is kept. As to the extract of Innocent IV.'s letter, there can be no doubt of the accuracy of Eaynald's quotation, which is confirmed by the fact of Ganganelli citing it in his report. Trusting that this declaration may serve your purpose, I have the honour to be, my Lord, Your obedient servant, E. Card. Merry del Val.' The Right Hon. Lord Rothschild. That disposes of all doubt as to the authenticity of the documents in question and as to the. accuracy of published quotations therefrom and inferentially shows that the testimony of the Holy See is the same to-day as it was right back to the thirteenth century.