New Zealand Times (PUBLISHED DAILY.) TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 1877.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 4989, 20 March 1877, Page 2

New Zealand Times (PUBLISHED DAILY.) TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 1877.

A matter to which allusion was made in a brief paragraph yesterday' demands more extended notice. That matter is the placing of the toast “ His Holiness the Pope” before that of “Her Majesty the Queen’’ at the dinner giveninßoulcottstreet schoolroom on St. Patrick’s Day. It would have been better for their own sakes if the gentlemen who are responsible for this had not had a defence from a quarter which by its advocacy of any cause only confers disgrace. We should be sorry, indeed to think* that they in any way countenanced advocacy produced only by the meanest and most contemptible, motives. This being so, we shall not attempt to hold those gentlemen responsible for the manner in which their conduct has been defended, and will content ourselves by pointing out to them the reasons why the community naturally objects to what they have done. The celebration of St. Patrick's Day should be, so far as Irishmen are concerned, a national event, involving no religious distinction. So far as the people of other countries are affected by that .celebration, in a British colony, whore English, Irish, and Scotch are’bleiided, it is joined in by other than •Irishmen in the main from 1 a holiday'hiaking point of view, but has nothing of a religious character about it. This was shown by the fact that at the sports on tlie Basin Reserve and at the dinner subsequently there were present people of all nations and religions,' and both affairs were essentially of a public nature. Now, it is dictated by 'the common sentiment of the community that the very first spirit to be evinced in all such public gatherings as a dinner, is one of loyalty to the British Crown ; but the gentlemen responsible for arranging the toasts at the

dinner referred to placed first on the list that of the head of their. Church, who claims to be a temporal Sovereign, and as supreme Pontiff to have control over all the kingdoms of the earth. Jh other words, Pius the IX., as an earthly monarch, and as supreme Pontiff,-was admitted to a position which the British law does not recognise, and which is repugnant to the feelings of the British nation. If a number of Roman Catholic gentlemen chose to dine in private, aiid to toast whom they liked, beginning with the Pope, and following with Alfonso of Spain, we might not admire their good taste, but should certainly have no objection to their airing of what are foolish prejudices. But when these gentlemen give a public dinner, professedly in honor of Ireland as represented by St. Patrick, when they invite to it, and dispose of tickets for it in a British colony to, British subjects, we do say that they insult not only the Queen but the community by placing before the toast of our sovereign that of a ruler whose temporal power could not extend over Great Britain, even were it not, as now, limited to the Vatican, and whoso spiritual supremacy is admitted by merely a section of the British nation. To make our meaning more plain, let us suppose that at some other dinner on a public occasion, those who had the arrangement of the toasts entrusted to them placed at the head of the list that of Martin Luther —a name held in as much reverence by a larger number of British subjects than the Roman Catholics make up as is that of the Pope by the Roman Catholics.; These latter would properly protest, and would be joined by every right-minded man in the community. It would be no excuse for a set of fanatic Protestants,; who got up a dinner and toasted first the great Reformer and next the Queen, to assert that they meant no insult to any one by it. Roman Catholics themselves would be the first to protest against such argument. There was, however, on Saturday evening an additional cause for rendering the course pursued most objectionable., The sports which preceded the dinner were under the patronage and in presence of her Majesty’s representative in blew Zealand, his Excellency the Governor, and yet at the dinner there was openly placed in precedence of the Queen, a sovereign for whom the British nation it is to be hoped will never entertain an unworthy feeling, but for whom there is certainly no national sentiment of reverence, no national admission of authority. For ourselves, we disclaim the idea of exciting religious prejudice by commenting on this affair, just as we refuse to discuss it with those who cannot discuss without being unmannerly and unfair. It is the committee of the St. Patrick’s dinner that is responsible for importing religions differences into a celebration which as placed before the public should have involved no religious feeling. It is the committee that by insisting on thrusting the religious element into a place where it should not have entered, has compelled us to comment on the circumstance, and has excited a very decided opinion in the community against such proceedings as took place under the auspices of the Hon. Dr. Morgan Stanislaus Grace, a J ustice 1 of the Peace appointed by her Majesty, and a member of the Legislative Council of the colony.