The Temuka Leader TUESDAY, MARCH 28, 1882.

Temuka Leader, Issue 933, 28 March 1882, Page 2

The Temuka Leader TUESDAY, MARCH 28, 1882.

Amongst our English telegrams will be found the news that, a Bill requiring Members of Parliament on taking, the oath of allegiance to express their, belief. in the existence of a God was rejected without, a division ; in, the House of Lords, This is very startling news. Who would' think that in the House of Lords a Bill of this nature would haye so few supporters that they would think it useless to go to. a division on the question. If such is the reverence in which God is held whaf is the use of an oafh ?.■ What good is it to administer an oath to a man who does not believe that there is a Supreme Being who will reward virtue and punish vice ? - Is it not a farce to swear a man of that, kind, whp has.no conscience, and who. does not consider an oath bidding, upon hip.?- Surely there must be some mistake about the matter,. The House of. Lords, or Commons—which contains more of, thp radical element would never countenance anything that would have the effect of denying the existence of a God. There may be a feyr sceptics... amongst them,, they may have various opinions on eligious matters, but taken as a whole we are sure the great majority of them would favor belief in the Supreme Being. In the House of Lords especially, where there . are a great many bishops, such a Bill could not have been rejected because of want of, be.lief in a God,; and we must conclude therefore that there was something more in it than has been telegraphed to us. It seems to us that the object of the Bill was to shut the blasphemer Brad laugh out of the House, but that in the course of the debate it was found quite unnecessary, and lienee its rejection. Wo believe that the oath taken by Members of the British House ot Parliament at present exacts from them a belief in God, and if so, of course the Bill referred to would be superfluous. No doubt ipligious people must have felt shocked at the idea of the House of Lords rejecting such a Bill without a division, but, we are certain that if the truth were knqwn.it is the way the Bill was .thought unnecessary, and therefore it was rejected.

A great sensation has been created in Melbourne, and, indeed wherever the news has been read, by the publication

in the Melbourne Age of documents I which purports to show that the Russian Government contemplates making a raid on the Australian Colonies, The information supplied by telegraph makes it appear that a man named Bryant who had been employed by the Ru: sian Admiral Aslanbegoff, has supplied the documents to the Age, but the Argus ridicules the idea as a palpable hoax. We must confess that we agree with the Argus, amj that we are surprised at the simplicity of the Age in believing the possibility of such a thing. The idea of Russia thinking of such a thing js absolutely ridiculous, {n the first place it is not probable that such a power as Russia would eyer descend to the level of a pirate, and fit out a fleet for no other purpose than to yob the Australian Colonies. Russia knows very well this is all she could do.. She knows that if she tried to take possession of agy of these colonies, she wou,ld riot hold it one month, She knows that a. r few weeks would bring such a fleet of English vessels to the defence of these colonies as would yery soon annihilate any armament she could afford to send, and therefore it is absolutely ridiculous to think that Russia would be mad enough to enter upon such an enterprise, Since the aboye was written-a telegram has been received from. Melbourne stating that Earl Kimberly has. cent a telegram to. Sir;. Bryan o,’ Loughlen to, the effect that the. statement with regard to Russian designs was totally incredible. The matter has engaged the attention, of men, in high position, evidently, though for the life of us we cannot imagine how people could be sc simple as, to. believe one word of it. So long as the Union Jack, ofj Old England floats over these islands they are pretty, safe from the attacks of Russia.

The judgjnpnt given in the case. oj. Charles Storey v. W. W. Dundass yesterday was, in, our. opinion, not the right, one. in this case Storey some time ago obtained judgment against, Dundass. for £2 16s 6d, and since then took, out a judgment summons wjiich came on for hearing, yesterday. In,such cases it is. necessary for the plaintiff to prove that the defendant has had sufficient money to pay the claim ,in ,the time that elapses, between the obtaining of; judgment in the first instance and the taking out of the judgment summons, and on. the ground that Storey failed to do this the case was adjourned. With due respect to the Court we say, that Storey did prove sufficient to entitle him. to a verdict. He proved tha(. tfio defendant was in receipt of Government, salary sufficient, to pay the amount, therefore, he made out a pnma facia case, 1 that was sufficient to entitle him, to a judgment. Mr Mendelsou said in reply to this that plaintiff did not, knpw but that, thp salary was impounded, so, that, tlie defendant could not pay. Did Mr Myndelson knpw that it was impounded? If such was the case it was , the duty of the defendant to be present in Court to show that it was.ijoapoupded apd tfiatffie could not pay. If Mr Mendelsou knew the merest rudiments of. would have known that when , the plaintiff f in such cases makes.out a prima facia. case and the defendant neglects to be present to, defend himself, it is the duty of - the Coui;t to find for the plaintiff.-