NOTES

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XLV, Issue 36, 5 September 1918, Page 26

NOTES

Sinn Fein

Sinn Fein is often mistranslated as “ourselves alone,” whereas it means “ourselves” tout court. Here there is no question of the Irish Sinn Fein; we merely wish to say a word about ourselvesor, to be accurate, to let others say a word for ourselves We have had from time to time during our days of Sturm uud Drang assurances from high sources that more than made up for all attacks, and by every mail they still come. Here are two messages from overseas by late Home and Australian mails. First, an Australian Prelate assures us that he hears it said repeatedly that “the Tablet is more excellent than ever”; and second, a well-known Irish P.P., who is an old reader of the Tablet, writes: “There is no doubt whatever that your views of the war—except that your opinion of Wilson is far too favorable—are the best published : you have forecasted events with marvellous accuracy. Your views on things Irish are sounder than anything we could write here on the spot. I read your words re the German Plot six or eight weeks after publication and I am amazed at the accuracy of your forecast and the judiciousness of your comments.” .

The French General’s Name

In addition to the light and shadow already thrown by discussion on the pronunciation of the name of the French Generalissimo we venture to bring under the eyes of our readers the following lines from an American contemporary —

Foch as She is “ Spoke.”

From us you’ll hear no scornful “Tush!” When others laud the name of Foch.

We leave the Tents to murmur “Bosh!” When people speak in praise of Foch.

The secret-service men should watch All aliens who disparage Foch,

And pinch the. first who dares to broach An adverse thought concerning Foch.

Come! Voice your feelings toward the Boche ! A trio of huzzas for Foch !

-r- Chicago Evening Post.

Parnell as an Orator

“I once,” says Lord Morley, “asked Mr. Gladstone on the bench if he did not think Parnell a good

speaker. ‘ Indeed I do, for he has got the very rarest of all qualities in a speaker measure. He always says exactly as much. as, -and not any more nor less than, ho means to say.’ ’l, High praise indeed! How many a good speech (and how many a good sermon) is spoiled exactly .because; the speaker does not know when to stop. Too often one hears it said of a sermon or of a speech that it was too long; and it is a serious fault; for wearied hearers are seldom in a frame of mind to be persuaded. The best tribute that can be paid to a speech or a ; sermon is that it is too short. A long sermon may easily be too short and a short sermon may just as easily be too long. Gladstone’s comment on Parnell’s speaking conveys the right test: measure is the saving quality. Meredith, too, was an enthusiastic admirer of Parnell’s oratory. Here is a curious and bitter, sample of it : (Debate on Volunteers for Ireland, June 13, 1878.) “There is no desire to attribute cowardice to the English soldier, but it is a common saying that in the day of battle the Irish regiments go first to break the line, the Scotch follow to take the prisoners, and the English come last to pick up the booty, which probably accounts for their having been able to acquire more wealth than the people of Ireland.’’

Parnell’s Power One little incident told by Lord Morley illustrates marvellously the power the great Irish Chief had over his followers. Just before the Home Rule Bill of 1886 was introduced he asked Lord Morley if he might have a, draft of the main provisions for communication to half a dozen of his confidential colleagues. “After some demur I boldly consented, with warnings to him of the frightful mischief that would follow leakage. Not a word came out. Some time afterwards he recalled the incident. ‘ Three of the men,’ he said, who saw the draft were newspaper men, and any newspaper would have given a thousand pounds for it. No wonderful virtue, you may say. But how many of your House of Commons would believe it?’’’ As things go in the world of politics to-day, when officehunting and jobbery is so large a part of the game, it strikes us that it was wonderful virtue indeed. Still we who know Messrs. Dillon, Healy, O’Brien, Sexton, and some others of the old school, find nothing ■wonderful at all in the matter. All the same it was v a fine tribute to the honor of the Party as well as to the leader’s influence over them. This case. Lord Morley testifies, was in keeping with Parnell’s usual conduct towards his associates in the House.

Parnell and O’Connell Lord Morley’s contrast of the two great Leaders is interesting. “In both O’Connell and Parnell the struggle against England was a vehement conflict of strong natures, not a dispute about pious opinions. Strong natures are not the same as rich natures, as was easy to see in the present conflict. To both of them the verdict was the thing they cared for. Parnell’s conception was the more original, for Catholic Emancipation was already an old story when O’Connell put on his armor. If Parnell’s idea was not wholly new, his was the strategic insight that discerned two things, and the angry, bitter, tenacious will that carried the ideas into action. One was the vulnerability of the House of Commons, the other the necessity of tacking political on to agrarian agitation. When all is said, this was a master-key. . . . The older statesman, who extorted the political rights of his people from the Duke of Wellington and Peel and Great Britain, had a large and comprehensive mind : his appeals and principles as a whole, in spite of all his rough or ruffian language, must be pronounced wide, generous, fertile, rich, elevating, massive. No adversities affected his fortitude and cheerfulness. O’Connell felt the historic, still more the moral forces, that justified and inspired the swelling movement of which he had made himself the central force.” The characteristic “English” allusion to O’Connell’s strong

language is amusing to us. When his arguments could not be gainsaid the people who were guilty of robbery and oppression and sacrilege held up their hands in horror at this old Irishman who told them what he thought of them in plain words. They always do! The Pharisees did the same when our Lord denounced them as a brood of , vipers and as whited sepulchres, full of corruption and rottenness. Weak minds cannot stand strong talk.