CORRESPONDENCE.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume X, Issue 35, 10 February 1875, Page 2

CORRESPONDENCE.

THE POPE AND THE QUEEN.

To the Editoii op the 'Evening- Mail.' Sir— l feel that I oxe an apology to myself, if not to you and tlie public, for the relative positions I have assigned to these two potentates in the title I have chosen for rtfy letter, but 1 feel still more deeply tliatf :i deliberate insult was offered to the ; < omnmnity of Nelson > y some of those who were present at the Hibernian Catholic Benefit Society's dinner on Monday last, and who,-!-imy be pardoned for saying, should have kno\Vn better. I read in your report that the lirßt toast proposed was " The Pope," the second " The Quten." An l£ hlso read there that thee were p.esent m the occasion when this slight was passed upon her Majesty two gentlemen who are clergymen of the Church of England and who, although not acting in that capacity now, have preached 1 1 congregations in Ne'son from the pulpits of that Church. These gentlemen, before bein^ admitted to holy orders, were required to t ike " the oath of the Queen's Sovereignty," which, it may be interesting to those who are unacquainted with it to learn, runs thus: — " I do swear thai; I, irom my heart, abhor, detest, ahd abjure, as impious and heretical, that damnable Doct iue and Position that Princes excommunicated or deprived by the Pope or any Authority of the See of Rome may be deposed or iuurden d by their Subj cts, or nny other whatsoever. And I <o declare, that no Foreign Prince, Person, Prelate, State, or Potentate lnth, or ought to have, any Jurisdiction, Power, Superiority, Pie-eminence <ir Authorit' , Ecclesiastical or Spiritual, within this llealni! So help me God." I nin desirous to know, t-ir, whether the two guests at the dinner on Monday to whom I refer have been absolve i from their oith, nnd, if not, how they could be parties to a cording " and pretminence" to any other lhnn Ihi; Qu-.o 1 , whose supremacy they hnd sworn to upholc* And, again These two gentleman must h'»ve subscribed to the thirty-nine articles, in the 37th of whiJi 1 find as follows:-" The Queen's Majesty hath the chief power in this Uealm oi: England, and other of her Dominions, unto whom the chief Government, of all e«tates of Her Realm, whether they bo Ecclesiastical' or Civil, in nil causes doth / appertain, an t is n t, n> r ought to he, subject/ to any foreign Ju-isdiction." H w ca;i / they reconci c this art cle of their leli<f tf with the consent — tacit thought it /might / be — that tiiey gave on Men lay night t j placing I her Majesty in a position uibordinate to that | of the Pope ? As a rue, I etrongly deprecate B

personalities, or anything approaching to (hem, in newspaper (iiFciifgions, but on the present occasion, I think that it is no breach of etiquette to point out what are, or hive been, the respective positions of tho?e who thus insulttd their Queen. One is the cx-heaj of our principal educational establishment. The o lur is his successor, and while I fully admit his abilities, and respect him for the prominent position iv which he has placed the Nelson ColUge among similar institutions in the colony, I cinaot but blame him for the example of dis'oynlty he las sec to his popils. And then, I find that, in addition to these two, we have our chief Magistrate— who, before he could find a place on the Commission of the Peace, must have taken the oath of allegiance to our Queen— l find him, I say, quiotly sitting by while a secondary pneiti n is accorded tj his Sovereign. We are not living in a Homan Citholic coui.try— Catholics themselves will admit that — but we are, one and all of us, I members of a British colony, over which Queen Victoria reigns supreme. And yet we find a late, and a present, teacher of our rising generation, and th<- chief resident administrator of the law in the district asserting by their actions at a semi public meeting that the Pope of Rome occupies in their estimation a superior position. to that of the Queen of England. Nelson, sir, msiy be lax in some things, but Bhe is essentially loyal, and I cmnot think that suuh a breach of the proprieties will be suffered to pass unno'iced, even in our small, and, in some respeetH, sleepy community, it pains me deeply to write in this strain of men ior whom personally I entertain a high respect, but if they have rjured my indignat : o.t, and that of every loyal subject in the place, \ha fan t is theirs nit mine, lam, &c, Englishman. BENEFITTING THE PROVINCE, To tub Editok op tiik * Evening -.Mail.' Sik—l have just seen in the Colonist of January flth, nn article treating on Messrs Knyvett and O'Conor's case, in which is the following: — "If the present Executive* are acting in a straightforward manner and doing what they can to benefit the province, &c." Will j on allow me through your independent paper to ask th j following queßiions: — Is it to the benefit of the' province to withhold large blocks of land from settlement iv the Buller Valley; is it to the benefit of the province to give the said land to contractors who can hold it \intil such time as ie suits their purpose, without ever settling on or improving it; is it to the benefit of the province that the part of the new dray road down the Valley sh mid have been t. ken off the hands of the contractors without the specifications having been carried out; is it to the ben fit of the province that the new line of road as now contracted for should be carried along the river banks, where it is liable to be swept/ away l.y floods, and along flats that are deeply flooded when there is a fresh hyUie river, whilst high terraces exut nearer, straighter, and better adapted for a ,line of road? Does all that look like a, benefit to the province? I have swa'lowed some good spoonfuls in my time, but the present Executive are too much for me to get down, and lam too dour, to have them shovel dmrn mv throat; ivfen if they are covered with the slime oiKnc Cblonist. I am, &c, George Stewart. - Hampden, Feb. 5, 1875.