BISHOP MORAN AND MR BARTON.

Evening Star, Issue 3499, 11 May 1874, Page 2

BISHOP MORAN AND MR BARTON.

To the Editor. t P l ?* be earliest moment possible to me, i hasten to reply to Bishop Moran’s letter. I have never disputed the right of Dr Moran and _his flock to combine their rotes for any political purpose they may desire to accomphsh, or to throw their weight in favor of Mr Stafford, Mr Stout, or Mr Wales, as we shall see below they have done. Ido strenuously object to any section of voters, whether Latbolic or otherwise, going about to misrepresent their own intentions and the rebgion and opinions of candidates. My chief object “ anting was to show the Protestant electors that they have an opponent whose numbers and tactics and alliances are alike unseen : and to urge upon Protestant electors the necessity of registering. , • - f It will be observed that Dr Moran dpes not deny the exiotenoe of the block list which ho showed me on his wall, nor does he deny having said that if a,ny one on that list ever presented lumself for election, he would find the Catholics strong enough to keep him out. But in the face of these facts, and of the additional fact that the meeting which decided on the slan fo : r defeating me was held in St. Joseph’s schoolnouse, he says he “ did not interfere in this Catholic PriestlS pffi if mg extracts from the ‘Tablet *■ ought to set tHe matter at rest. - *- Speaking of Mr Stout’s victory over Mr at Caversham, the ‘ Tablet’ of June 21'. lof 3, says:— . * ' Mr Leary is OUT of Caversham. The moral from this and Mr Barton’s defeat is that though the Catholic electors may not always put a candidate on the educational question in, they can always keep anyone who trifles with them r ‘. Tabl J et ’ of March 7,1874, shortly after L;fV SSUed ™y, addr ? ss to the electors, and whde I was still the only candidate in the fields reminded its readers, in italics, “ Afrßai'. ton did not present, as requested, the petition'of constitumts m the subject of edwetfIn the 1 Tablet’ of April 25, 1874, after the election was over, the editor, in lamenting the defeat of Stafford (through the discovery of his havmg Catholic support), and in crowing over my defeat, lets out in the exuberance of his triumph the tactics employed here ; In writing this, we fear we Are not promoter® sr® P obtical interests of Mr Stafford, The No-Popery cry is as potent in this Colony, particularly m the Southern Provinces, as it ever was m the old country, even in the worst days. It was for tins reason that we did not dare sav one wordm reference to the recent Dunedinelectwn. We feared lesVour oppdsitroutoMr.Barton might have enabled that gentleman to appeal to Protestant prejudices, and thus secure’ his election beyond the possibility of a doubt. Wo did not oppose him, therefore, lest we might thereby incur the responsibility of being instrumental in returning Mm,”' ’ v ■ ■ „ ,% Moran may ahswer that he is not re- < P T.S e > f % t J ie of the editor of thq W w bo will compare i ng -t? fclcl !? Q th ® ‘ tablet ’ of 7th June, 1873. descubing ( the manner in which I had treated the petition sent tome to the Provincial Council, and that part of Jjfie Bishop’s letter describing the satye thing, will have no doubt that the writer of both is qne aqdlbe same person. The language of tie twq is almost identical In that article and in hisletterDr Moranprofesses to give a conversation he had with Me. lie states that he asked me to present the Dunedin petition to the Council-that I did not positively refuse, but that 1 made great difficulty about doing so, and that I ultimately consented. My answer is that no such conversation ever took place. The Bishop, perhaps unintentionally, conveys the idea that he had three different conversations with me, the fact being that I never saw Bishop Moran, nor had any kmd of communication with him, except P*!. tbe occasions referred to in my former letter. The first was when I suggested the several petitions; and anyone may see that it could not be on that occasion-that I “healtated about presenting the oiie from Dunedin ■ for they were not yet prepared. The next oe--BhTrly a A fc ® ? & rr Laughton’s resignation of his seat for Queenstown, and after that gentleman had told me that the Bishop was so deeply offended at my conduct respecting the CatKnHo P w lO u 1 muafc expect the Odthohc vote to be against me if I contested not* +b n ’ I vu at . uitervie w, -ia which I did not ask the Bishops support, though I attempted to convince him that he had no reason m lus ostensible ground of opposition, was not maw* 15,1871, when’Mr Haughton moved- That the estimates for education be re-considered. 4 iff order to make proyisjon for a subsidy to Roman Oatholiq schools, m acoordanoe with the several petitions of theßoman catholic inhabitants of this Provmce. ” On that debate I did not speak, and did not vote. Mr Haughton’s motion, though professing to be founded on those petitions, proposed a measure which I had not at aU under--1 was willing, as I said in it- l tpr ’« to ex P un S e from our National aU expressions tending t q lower, the Catholic clergy m tfie eyes of Man CathpUo ohildieu. But 1 Was hot, - nqr am I how, in favor of separate schools, training our youths to bp combatants of rival creeds, instead of rearMlalmtiiitßeiiß iif a common country, ~ 1 Bishop goes on to say that he sent down the Dunedin petition, with a note to me, to the Council Hall, and that both were left oi*iny desk. In reply, I may say that the custom was, and I beheveis still, that all letters or papers left by an v person for a member of the Provincial Council l°Kl n hh esk ( whence * b ey would be liable to be thrown down in his absence), but *?£ rk^d name ; and I urukrtafe to say that no snefi letter or petition as Dr Moran speaks of was ever found by me Pigeon-hoie. The Bishop states in Ss letter that I pleaded the Reichelt case to him as my excuse; ‘ but,” fie rejoined, “you were m the House during the three days ” (meaning, tbr .!f da y®’ interval between hhs P^} on and its actual presentation y MrCnttch),. and if you wished you might have complied .with the'request of your oohstitueats, or at all events have asked setoff other member to present the petition.?’ Bishop Moran admits in the article ofthe 7th Jufae that the petition was presented by Mr Outten; j Q< i “° m the records that this was on tne of June. I have taken the trouble of examining the Votes and Proceedings of-the Oonncil of that year; also thy own diary, and the newspaper reports of the same period, to see when and how the Catholic petitions were presented, and how I myself was engaged dur xng the same time. I find .that bn Thursday June 15, I was in the House and voted, Friday, June 16, the first bateb Af CathollS petitions (five) were presented byMessre Shep herd, Bastmgs, Haughton, Hickey, and Am. strong and that a petition for, Messrs ISshall and Copeland, brewers, which had been entrusted to me was presented “bv Mr w hard pro Mr Bar tom” I w» s Sheptb. Council im that Fmfv 1157 oWtl sb «ws that I wis ohtw 16th June, engaged tiU 12 p. m . (miSiehtffi the inquiry in Reichelt’s case ' 17th June, of course. no JSL Sa^ Monday 19th, two P presented by Mr Clark and Mr Haughte^ r ss U“o“ wOuthoU, 4tion ß fore none w

day, 1 believe I was absent from the Council. At any irate, I was absent from the afternoon opportunity of presenting petitions had there been any to present, as I was engaged from 2 p.m. till 3.30 in consultation with Messrs J M‘Lean, Henry Driver, and James Macassey. Ihave no reasonable doubt that I was engaged the rest of that evening in preparing to conduct the heavy case of Bathgate v. Bank of Otago, whohoccDpiedthe Court the two following days. I find on Wednesday the 21st no Catholic petitions were presented, and I again presume none were sent down. On that day I was engaged till after 4 o’clock, and I find no trace of my presence that evening in the Provincial Council. But of this lam certain, that even if 1 was present, I neither heard nor saw anything ®f the Dunedin Catholic petition. I find that on the 22nd (Thursday) two Catholic petitions were presented : one from Kyebum, Oamaru, &c., by_Hon. J. M'Lean; the other, from Dunedin and other places, by Mr Cutten—this latter being the one which it is alleged “ had been kicking about the Council Hall for three days ” On that day, the 22nd, the ‘ Otago Daily Times’ report shows that I was engaged all day from 10 a.m. till 7.15 p.m. in the Supreme Court in tbe case of Bathgate v. the Bank of Otago. it appears that Bishop Moran is mistaken in supposing that I was present on any of the days when these petitions were presented and equally mistaken in believing that I knew he had sent me the Dunedin petition and letter he refers to. As to the delay, if there was any, 1 find that the Dunedin petition was by no means the last that was presented. One was brought forward on the 28th June byMrLumsden, and another so late as the 7th of July, by Mackenzie. Were these two petitions left ■ kicking about the Council Hall ?” Bishop Moran terms me a “ quondam blatant Diberal now turned Orangeman,” and adds that the most besotted bigot could not have pven expression to a greater spirit of hostility tp his .Boman Catholic fellow-subjects, and a pnpre lamentable Ignorance in reference to" the designs of the Catholic Church” than I have displayed. In so far as the principles of Orange18in imply opposition to TJltramontanism, Xam content to be ranked as an Orangeman. With . the designs of the Catholic Church,” so farfas creed is concerned, I claim no right to interfere, ,V bpt.m regard to its political policy I do claim such right: where it ceases to be a creed, it becomes a sjiate-craft. I adhere to my statement that the ‘real object of Ultramontane Catholicism is-to keep its own flock unthinking unpducatpd, and to retard as much as .-, • PRasible thfe liberal education of othepp. Ifrom ' the statements of Irish Catholic bishops I will make afewextracts, and leave the public to judge. Bishop Dprry, in a pastoral dated Ash Wednesday, 1865, speaking of the Queen’s Colleges in Ireland, says ‘lt ig expressly subjoined on us to use our best efforts to keep youth away from colleges of that description. Parents and guardians of young men are to understand that by accepting education in them for those under their charge, they dispise the warnings, entreaties, and decisions of the Head of the Church. Adhering, to the discipline in force in ’ ™ e diocese, we once for all declare that they \vhQ ar§ gpilty of it shall pot be admitted tp pf Penance while they continue’ their disobedience.” In September, 1869, a pastoral by pardmal Gnjleh was published i® the ‘Times,’ jn which occurs the following passage I am Spjconvinped of the evils of the Model, School ■, ; system, that I give # notice to any Catholic parents who will obstinately persevere in keeping their children in the lion’s den, in the 6f danger,, that I feel bound,to deprive "heimof the advantages of the Sacraments of the Church until they make up their minds to act as parents anxious for the eternal salvation of their children ought to act.” .Dr Keane, Bishopof Cloyne, examined before the .Royal Commission on Primary Education, said the only thing the Church did not claim to ■ teach' was th« ’ multiplication table, add j-t Ppriian, tUe p| Down, apd Cppppr, jp Rnswer to the same question said that ‘'even in arithmetic, there might arise points of a metaphysical kind which a teacher might explaip injuriously.” If these Roman Catholic : ; Biebops are true exponents of the “ designs of the P%rch,;’ then no pne can doubt what those Resigns are:—l ain, &q:, - ' ' : ' • ■ George Elliott Barton’. Dunedin, May 11.