Current Topics

New Zealand Tablet, Volume LI, Issue 40, 24 September 1924, Page 18

Current Topics

Because They Loved; In an interesting book, The Lordship, of the World, by C. J. O'Donnell, we read the following passage which ought never be forgotten: It was the grim threat of an exacerbation of the Black and Tan regime that brought Arthur Griffith and Michael Collins to their knees. They were brave men, having no felir of the consequences for themselves, but they would not subject the civil population of Ireland to.a devastation more thorough than Cork and Balbriggan, Mallow and Trim, already had felt. Critics of these dead heroes seldom do them the justice to remember that they signed a pledge to recommend the Dail to accept the Treaty only because they were confronted with a threat of immediate British frightfulness, and because, fearing nothing for themselves, they loved the men and women and children of Ireland too well to be responsible for bringing fire and destruction upon them. A Contemptible Critic An obscure scribbler who, under the pen-name of "Civis," contributes to the Otago Daily Times of this city a weekly column of stale jokes and second-hand gibes has been criticising the Tablet for expressing tlie opinion that Germany was not responsible for the war. We are neither astonished nor concerned to find that 1 our views upon international affairs make this person angry. "What does surprise us, however, is that he has never allowed himself to become angry enough to attempt to meet our oft-repeated accusation that he is a forger. As he reads our journal regularly he must, at some time or other during the past five years, have read our references to the forgery he committed when quoting an extract from Lecky's History of Ireland in the Eighteenth Century. Yet no fire of indignation seems to burn in his soul at a charge which puts him outside the pale of honest journalism. The truth is that the indictment is too crushing to permit of either defence or explanation. It could not even be smoothed over with a lame jest. Silence and a sickly grin are his only refuge when it is mentioned. His paper condoned the offence by refusing to publish an exposure of it. When one finds that an opponent cannot give a simple quotation without deliberately falsifying it one can only treat him as a cheat or a fool and refuse to waste time with him. Irish History Examinations Remember, remember the thirtieth of September, for that is the date of the Irish History examinations. The papers will be sent out this week and teachers are'requested to follow'the usual procedure. Invite the pastor to preside, or to appoint a trustworthy substitute. The examination papers are not to be opened until the competitors are assembled and ready for the test. Alter the examination, the teacher will select the best three papers in each division (or the best six papers if there are twenty, or more candidates) and post them as soon as possible to the examiners. The Senior papers are to be posted to Rev. E. Lynch, Catholic Presbytery, New Plymouth; and the Junior papers to Rev. John Kelly, Catholic Presbytery, Newtown. We exhort teachers to see to this part of the programme as soon as possible as the Editor of the Tablet must have all ' the prizes sent out before the end of October. We are pleased to say that large numbers are applying for papers these days and we hope the applications will continue to roll in until the end of this week when we must put on the closure. The examiners will arrange the names in order of merit, and medals, book prises, and certificates will, on

receipt of the lists, be forwarded to the successful candidates. With this notice our work for this year is dene. It only remains now to hold the examinations and award the prizes. Our last word is a fervent aspiration that the labor of the teachers who regard the Irish History lessons as a great work for Faith and Fatherland may be rewarded in time and eternity. M.F.E. sends us five shillings this week, and it means a book more for some of the young people. The Church and Liberty Edward S. Martin, writing in Harper's Monthly Magazine, says: . Consider the Catholics.- The fear of the Roman Catholic Church among Protestants in this country came from England and was the fear of the restriction of libertyof priestcraft, of clericalism, of control of education in the interest of a powerful Church. But stars above us! Observe what has happened to us! Out of the Protestant churches has come the Volstead Law and all such regulations of private habits as the anti-cigarette law in Kansas, the campaign against evolution in colleges and the Oregon ■law against private schools. If the Catholics meddled as much with private life and personal preference as the Methodists and Presbyterians and the Baptists do, what do you suppose would happen to them? But as tilings go now, a legislation-ridden people, tormented by fanatical laws, may easily turn to Catholic voters and take counsel and action with them for relief. Just as the disloyal Orangemen, who are ready to kick King George off his Throne unless he does what they want him to do, are always preaching about the disloyalty of other people, so, too, the Protestant ranters, especially the Low Church people, whose besetting sin since the days of the Reformation has been bigotry and persecution, are always inventing lies about the persecutions inflicted on Protestants by Catholics. As Mr. Martin justly points out, the boot is on the other foot. Catholics stand fast for freedom and are. almost alone in their fight " against all sorts of petty and annoying tyrannies. Catholics defend the rights of individuals and of families against State interference, just as they oppose the fads of fanatics who want to dictate to a man what he shall eat or drink, whether he shall smoke or not, and whether he shall send his children to the school he approves or to one designed for him by his enemies. Nearly all this intolerable and meddlesome prying into domestic concerns comes from the Baptists and Methodists and from similar noisy persons who, as statistics proved, were not famous for their patriotism when volunteers were wanted for the' war. It is always the same story. The Ulster Boundary The Boundary Commission (when it sits) will be well supplied with unofficial interpretations of Article XII of. the Anglo-Irish Treaty. Almost every day a Daniel in the .person of some played-out politician or erstwhile Tory rebel instructs the British Government how to break treaties. Lord Birkenhead (late "Galloper" Smith of Carson's rebel army) interprets the boundary clause of the Treaty as having reference to minor frontier ratifications only. Mr.. Lloyd George enthusiastically supports this view. He says he cannot imagine that the eminent South African judge, who has been called upon to interpret the Treaty, would come to an unreasonable decision which would tear up Ulster's territory. Sir James Oraig, in an interview, declared that Lord Birkenhead's letter made no difference whatever to his attitude in regard to appointing a Commissioner. Viscount Cave points out that if Parliament confirms the recent agreement between Mr. Ramsay MacDonald and Mr. Cosgrave the Commission of three members (two appointed by the British Government and one by the Free State) will be empowered to determine the boundaries of Ulster and the rest of Ireland—that is to say, to transfer territory from Ulster to the Free State without the consent

of the Ulster Government. He declares that the problem can be solved only with the concurrence of both the Free State - and Ulster; and that Parliament should hesitate before attempting to wrest territory from a loyal State like Ulster without the consent of its Government.

From the foregoing it would appear that the undoubted loyalty of a few Ulster Orangemen to their own interests is a sufficient reason why the British Government should break its Treaty with the Irish people. It is to be hoped that the Government, for the sake of England no less than of Ireland, will see its duty a little clearer than that. The concern for Ulster is really concern for the maintenance of the Protestant Ascendancy in the North. If the pledges given by Winston Churchill on behalf of Lloyd George when the latter was Prime Minister are honored the boundary will be fixed in accordance with the wishes of the Catholics and Nationalists now included in the Six County area. That would mean the breaking up" of the Ulster, the boundaries of which were fixed so as to exclude just as many Catholic and National districts as would leave the Orangemen in a majority. Tyrone, Fermanagh, and possibly Derry would go the Free State; and what remained of Ulster after that could be covered by Lord Carson's wig. Thus the schemers seem to have fallen into a pit of their own digging. They dare not leave the issue in the hands of the people of the counties affected; so nothing remains for them to do but to bleat about Ulster's "loyalty" and pin their faith on the mulishness of Sir James Craig. The duty of the British Government, however, is clear: it must fulfil its obligations and set up the Commission t© revise the Ulster boundary in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty. Another Stage According to a cable message dated September 16, the twenty-one Conservative, Liberal, and Labor members of the House of Commons who toured the disputed area wrote to the Times to say that they are unanimously agreed: Firstly, that a satisfactory settlement can best be reached by a direct mutual agreement between the two parties in Ireland. Secondly, if the negotiations are to succeed they should be started before the establishment of the Boundary Commission. They urge that there should be a meeting between representatives of Ulster and the Free State at the earliest possible moment. Another message on the same day informed us that the Ulster Cabinet advised Mr. Ramsay MacDonald that it had decided to adhere to its decision not to appoint a representative on the Boundary Commission. The next stage will be the assembling of the British Parliament on September 30, in an atmosphere suggesting crisis. Lord Londonderry (Minister of Education in the Ulster Cabinet) informed the Evening Standard that the opinion of the twenty-one parliamentarians referred to above is not of any value. Ulster had nothing to give away. Other quarters suggest that in the event of the Commission being created, Ulster will appeal to the law courts to declare the Act ultra vires, because a self-governing colony's boundary cannot be contracted without the consent of that colony having been obtained. The decision of the Ulster Cabinet bears out our oftexpressed opinion that nothing will be gained from further conferences with the Orangemen. In any case it is not the business of the Free State to confer with Sir James Craig. The Treaty by which Ireland stands was not made with Ulster but with England; and it is England's particular business to see that its provisions are carried out. The-suggestion that Ulster will appeal. to the law courts need cause .Ireland no anxiety. If Ulster adopts that course her dispute will be with England. She will go to the British law courts as a British dependency, but the of the courts cannot affect the validity of the

Treaty, because the ; latter;" being an; agreement between two sovereign states, cannot be altered, or amended by; one contracting party against the wishes of the other party. England's duty is. to carry out the provisions of the Treaty within a reasonable time, because time is the essence of contract. She must settle her differences with, the Orangeymen as best she can. That is her problem and theirs* Divorce in Ireland The measure of independence which ■ Ireland has won carries with it many responsibilities. During the British regime the Irish Courts had not the power to grant divorce from the bond of marriage, and Irishmen seeking divorce had to proceed by Bill in the British House of Lords. According to the Bishop of Cork the question of whether the Free State should grant divorce has now been raised. Protestants are demanding facilities for divorce, and the Bishop has been drawing attention to the possible political agitation in relation to Christian marriage. It might be urged, he said, that the right of divorce would not affect and would do no harm to Catholics; that Catholics if divorced/would not re-marry and that they would not avail themselves at all of the divorce facilities* But the serious question will still remain: Shall We have in the Irish Free State divorce from the bond of marriage, with right of re-marriage for divorced parties? It is well that the Catholics of the country should know that that question might enter into the sphere of practical politics and administration. Catholics should declare themselves immovably opposed to divorce. For the moment, not yet fully recovered after the strain of the last few years, the people might appear apathetic as regards public events, but they will have to arouse themselves if divorce is not to be put in action in the country. It would be said that Protestants would be denied the facilities they enjoyed under British rule; that disability would be inflicted on them if divorce from the bond of marriage was refused them: but why should any party in the State get facility for doing what the Catholic Church regarded as the violation of the Divine Law? It might be said that the State would say nothing about the lawfulness or unlawfulness of divorce and re-marriage of divorced persons; that it -would merely give certain status before the civil law. States did not enact laws to facilitate violations of the other Commandments—say, for example, "Thou shalt not kin," '■Thou shalt not steal." Why should facilities and a cover be given for transgressing the mandate: "What God hath joined together let no man put asunder," and for violating the Divine Commandment: "Thou shalt not commit adultery." No one wished that disabilities should be inflicted on Protestants by positive Acts of Parliament enacting new disabilities. What they wanted was not positive Acts or new disabilities, but abstention from putting into force the power of divorce, hitherto unknown in Ireland. The practice of divorce would imply that a man and woman, married perhaps for years, and perhaps father and mother of children, could have their marriage dissolved and could contract new marriages—leading to a life of adultery. He hoped, if action in this matter threatened, every public body and every congregation of the faithful would protest vigorously against the concession- of divorce facilities in the country. Divorce might become a danger to a few Catholics, just like marriage in the Protestant Church. He prayed the faithful would always have the greatest reverence for the holy Sacrament of Matrimony, and that they would be always obedient to the pastors of the Church.

The moment anybody is satisfied with himself, everybody else becomes dissatisfied with him—Sir J. Malcolm.