The Temuka Leader. TUESDAY, MAY 29, 1888. THE WAYS OF THE WORLD.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1743, 29 May 1888, Page 2

The Temuka Leader. TUESDAY, MAY 29, 1888. THE WAYS OF THE WORLD.

One of the great cries of Conservatives during the late English elections was that M Home: Rule ” meant “Rome Rule.” By this they desired to convey to the ignorant and prejudiced that if ! Ireland were given power to manage her own affairs it would result im the supremacy of the Papacy. It is a strange fact lhat this party, through private intrigue and backstairs influence, have been (ho first to introduce “Rome Rule” into that unfortunate country, with the hope that it will destroy the prospects of Ilotne Rule. With that; object in view they sent to Rome the Duke of Norfolk. They: could qot have employed’anyone more likely to succeed. He is the chief Catholicjayman of England ; lie is a thorough Conservative ; the most relentleis of Ire and’s enemies, and he is suspected of never having boon oyeiscrupulous with regard to truth; His kinsman, Cardinal Howard, also hblds a high 'position at the court of Rome, boh g Archpriest of the Vatican Basilica, and is besides a member of the College of Cardinals. Everything, therefore, favored the success of the Duke’s mission—and a Success it has beebme. No such success rewarded the efforts put forth by Mr 'Gladstone a few years ago. He had iu> great English Roman Catholic Duke to do his dirty work at Rome ; he had only Mr Ernngton, and lie returned baffled and discredited. Thus the Conservatives who screamed that “Home Rule” meant “ Rome Ru'e ” have been the first to introduce the latter, but thsy will find out tb»t it will prove’ as ineffectual as their villainous 1 coercion. -The’ baker who refused to sell bread to the monastery it. which Monsignor Persico—the Papal Nuncio—was staying, is not hk#ly to trouble himself a great deal as legarris the Papal Decree —mid he expresses the tet-imgs of irishmen throughout the world.

In this lh«re is a lesson which men ol at) nations ana of n > terms of beliel m glu well study. The (.onserystive

aristocrath nf England made use of. the religious cry at '.lie time of tho lost o'eclions to f'ightoii ignorant people into voi'ng for tli'-rn. VVn(i it all for the go-ut of these people! If it were, and ihey bi-lievut Hint “Home Rule” was “ Uom*' Rule,” they would, .not bo tin- lirst ’o introduce “ Rome Ru'o.” It is p nin, therefore, that they ni'ide u-<e ol the lel'gioua cry to secuio their own ends. With this ih-y deluded the people of England into voting for them, and the use they have made of the powtr thus ncquTed is to perpetuate the lino of policy which has reduced every seventh persoe j in E- gland to Hiarvatiuo. Men «h"‘ desire to advance the cause of humanity, and the cuu-e of national liberty, ought to rtfleet on this fact, and never allow differences in their lioiiefs an to the best way to servo th* ir (1 d to disunite ,th> ni in their effoits to promote tinman happiness hero belovy. Every roi ginn, | caches that to d ffuse happiness, and • c--in fori amongst God’s creatures is a viHue tha' will Inve.its reward, except the religion of the landlord and the capitalist. That is the religion men ought to fe r ami avoid ; the religion of gr etl and ayaric —the religion yh it, staiv.js the poor'so that the rich may live in luxmious pro-' fiigacy. Many a poor, honest Englishman voted against the great and glorious Gladstone during the recent/ e ectiotn, through having been frightened by the “ No Popery ” cry, and yet it was; those who raised the cry that introduced tho Papeiy. But it is an old trick of England with tegard to Ireland. In “ Young Ireland,” Sir Ct.arles Gaviio Duffy s iys : I —“Since the reign of Elizihetli tho • Government of England was foibiddon by penal statute to hold communication wit It the Holy See, but the Stuaits openly or secret,ly-Wiiliam HI. through his Com tinental ag nts and the House of Brunswick by the agency of Hanover—had maintained a representative nt>a r the Pope.” O’Ndil Daunt, in one of hs speeches delivered in Conciliation. Pall at j the time of O’Connell, said I ‘‘‘Withj vyhat shame’eas inconsistency English I statesmen acted : they .required Catholics I to swear that the Pope neither hid nor ought to have any temporal authority in Behind, while they wue. laboring underhand to induce him to, exercise the very authority the ex H'ence of which Oathol'cs wore required to deny on oath.” It is the same to-day as it was 50 years ago. The “ No-Pop»iy ” cry does its work in Boland, while in .Ireaud t.;'ey employ dho Pope, (o crush the national aspirations. ; of the poop'o. I believe it was the .prophet Jeremiah who said,- ‘0 that my people, would think!” Whoever said it, 1 rteoho his and say, “Othat the people would think for themselves, and not allow thumae'ves to be the' pliant tools of landlords and capitalists, but combine together to °ocure lor all a f dr share of God’s gifts.” ■ >

I notice that Givis, of tlio O ago Daily wants to know wh’.l Irishmen wi 1 think of 1 the infallibility of the Pop ' no v. Wo lam ready to toil him. JUat what they always t. ought of it. The Pope does not claim to be infallible in matters relating to politics, and never will, for never will any one believe him, Thera is. a wide difference between doctrine and discipline ; in the former the Pope claims to bo infallible;, in the latter he does not. The Irish will still continue to inke theologic iDß : ructiona from Rome, hut will refuse to allow themselves to be dictated to in political matters. In J 789, at the request of Mr Pitt, the Universities of Louvain, "Valladolid, and the Sacred Faculty of Paris unanimously agreed “ that neither the Pope nor the Cardinals nor any body of mien, nor any 1 person in the Chnrch of Eome, have any civil authoiiiy, power, o l ' jurisdiction, brproi eminence in England, or in any kingdom outside the states of' the Church.” iAcr cording' to this decision Rome has no right : lo intt tfere; in Irish politics, and Cardinal Moran sUys the Irish'will be justified in" resisting any such interference. The "question' of infallibility is not it>volven, and I must say it is : wbll for infall toility’ that it is not, for it iwould find a great diffionl'y in rendering itself palatable to’lrishmen. 1

The Standard says the Papal Deer: e will destroy Homo Buie, as the people will not now subscribe to the funds. Now is the time for Irishmen to subscribe liberally, and to let the world see they, are no craven cowards who woulfl bow down at the beck or call of anybody. I shall be surprised if the Decree will not replenish the coffers of the Leagued '

I here is cot in Now Zaa'and a more generous-bear ed or a more noble-minded po itioiau than Sir Robert Stout. In nobility of character and single-minded i evolion to his adopted country, as well J as in point of ability, he stands head aod • shoulders over all others. There is amongst the present Ministry one who was Sir Robert’s friend, acd who deserted him because ho was envious of him.’ This is well known to the inti.mate friends of the Minister, who ’angh behind his back at" his boastful assertions ’about being a moie capable man than Sir Rob-rt. When Sir Robert was de■f A ed, and his quaiudom, but envious, friend was raised co the Tretsury Denches, Sir Robeit Stout was the first to give public expression to h's gratification at seeing him there. When Sir Hobert took office in 1884 he recommended ttiAt thepievions Ministry shoul 1 retain 1 the t : t e of “Honorable” lor life. When Sir Harry Atkiaion ousted: Sir Robert in *IBB7, how did he reciprocate it ? Ho did overything in his power to hold the Stout Ministry up to ridicule and contempt.. There was nothing too mean or too contemptible for him to stoop to to damage the political c har icier of Sir Robert —yet .'lien last week Sir Harry .was in troubled waters, in consequence of the extraordinary statement of the AttorneyGeneral, the generous and noble-minded Sir Robert Stout forgot all the mean tricks res rted to by the Government, and, in a letter Id the papers, came to iheir rescue. Had Sir Robert Stout been in a similar ; predicament Sir Harry Atkinson would have gloated over his discomfiture.

In the same letter in which Sir Hobart Stout Defended the Ministry he also defended ttio Bmk of New Zealand. He said the Bank bad always opposed him, and had a great deal to do with his defeat, but h* (fccognised it as a eo'onial insulation, and it would pa\ ti e people of this co ooy to give d half a million of money sooner than see it go to the wall.

1 lake the liberty of doubling thin. I would not like to aeo the Bank coining to grief, but I should like tc see it pinched to a degree that would compel it to sell the bind it 1r.13 in its possession. That is the cause of a groat deal of the misery at present. The Bank and kindred institutions have on hand immense areas of land, on which they hive lent more money than they can get for it now, and they will not part with it at a loss. Now, this is retarding the development of the country, by keeping the country locked up, and I should like to see them compelled to sell at the marker value. If they make a loss it is due to their own fau't in lending on the land, more thanit was worth, arid it is right that they should suffer for if. Many u man lias had to ac:ept 10s in the £ in this colony—and sometimes; nothing iii the £—and a great deal*of the woe arid: misery has been due to the greediness of monetary institutions. It would, there-; fore, bo to me a source of a good deal.of, pleasure.-to - see those institutions ‘compelled tp, sell at Or reason able rate, so as to bring, capital into the colony and; promote' settlement, bat I certainly should notlikbi to seeVliehi coming to grief.' ’ , i ! v! Coin OVLanus, K.C.M.G,