Dublin Notes.

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XIX, Issue 20, 13 February 1891, Page 21

Dublin Notes.

(From the National Papers.)

One remarkab'e feature of the upheaval of i piaion against Mr. Parnell i<» the fact that almost every priest who has been la prisou duriag the Balfounan regime is taking a foremost part in it. Canon Keller and Father Mat Kyan, who were among the first vie ims of Balfourism, have been among the first to cry out against the scandal of his continued leadership. Father Kennedy of Melm who has been in gaol three times, follows suit. Father Gillespie, of Labasheeda is aleo on the scene as well. We shall not go into ths characters of some of those who have been shoved forward as makeweights against the priests led by the Archbishops of Armagh, Dublin, Ca9hel, and Tuam. We have more respect for those clergymen than they have themßelve?, and we are not willing to lift the veil off the past. Land-grabbers possess many unenviable characteristics, hut the press-grabbers who have seized the places from which Mr. William O'Brien and his entire staff have been evicted po?se«s qualities which as far as we know, are not to be found in the first-turned fraternity. The land-grabber makes no effort to conceal his identity ; if the evicted tenant's Dame happens to be over the door, he pulls it down and places his own name instead. Not one of the corps has ever been bo mean as to deliberately place it there. But the pics-grabbers to whom we refer don't stop at trifles. In this week's edition they have the cool audacity to print William O'Brien's name as the publisher, notwithstanding that one of hi« dearest and most trusted friends is bracketted with Judge Keogh of infamous memory. Rather than subscribe his name to the stuff contained in the production William wou d burn his right hand off.

The apparent inconsistency of certain members of the Irish party, in supporting Mr. Parnell at the Lunster Hall meeting, and now opposing his attempt at rebellion, has been commented on very freely by his followers. To grasp the significance of that meeting, the circumstances under which it was held must be considered. la spite of his deep dishonour, the men who had fought their country's battle under his nominal leadsbip were anxious that his retirement from the post which he could no longer honourably hold should be as pasy and dignified as they could make it. Ireland and her representatives expected that this man, whatever had been his crime, could not forget the duty he owed his country. Hir friends whispered that this was understood, and sedulously was it rumoured that Mr. Parnell desired re-election as Chairman of the Party, in order to surrender his public trust with dignity. Mr. Parnell knew of these rumours ; he passively countenanced them : he used ttum to Fecure his re-elec-tion, and having first traded on the gcaerosity vi his colleagues, he then used it against them when he had forced on them the choice between himself and Ireland.

Mr. Parnell is still appea'ing to the Queen's Proctor. It is about time for that old gentleman to rip up this O'Shea case, and get at the truth of it. Mr. Parnell says we do not >et know it. " They need not talk to Ireland about vntue. Irishmen and Irishwomen know how to guard their own virtu", without any dictation or advice from England, and when the time comes my countrymen will know that they have not trusted me in vain, and that 1 hive be en a t uthful ami brave leader of the destinies ef our ountry dining tnese list sixteen years. They will tind some diy that I am net the dishonourable man that my foes .ry to persuaie jou I am. ' I'ne day, it there i j ever to be a dny, and if it has not alrca ly pissed, h here and now. As we said b.lore, it there is an answer to "the disgraceful cvi lence in the Divorce Court, tr c h ding 1 1 it is a wor-e betrayal ot Ireland than was the conduct whici laid open our cause to the injury wh en it has already received But if the Quetn's Proctor ever s f irs, ought he no' to stir in this case 1

In the centre of the mining distuct of Krkenny is the village ot Clough. Clough will go down to his'ory \<\ thj /,//,, n' C >mmission Report associated witn tt.e name ot Mr. John Di lon. It was the scene of one of the mist ternb.e in\ecti\ei ut'er--d by Air. Dillon against the Foister >e</u/u —an invectnc thar shook the grim old Coerciomst himself. Ha spoke there the Sundiy after the shoo.inj; of the children in the streets of Balnru, an i he prayed that the blood of the slaughtered children might cry to heaven for vengeance on the heads of ihe members of the Executive responsible for ir. The whole meeting cried • Amen '"' Ihe sce-ne was a memorable one, indeed, and Sir James Hatmen an 1 his collogues havj easuie 1 it perpetual remembrance.

Father O Halloran was tie cunie ot Clough at tbe time. Ho was an active organiser, and, rumour bad it, weil-fou ded, we believe, that hp was marked out f r c impanionihip with Father Eugene Sheehy. The news spread among the miners of th ' intended arrest of their priest. They preptrei to resist it to the death. Night after nignt they mounted guard round his iesi ienc 1 , and so plain were the indications of desperate resistance tint the warrant was cancellee l . If it be true, as asserted, taat some friend of Mi. Painell bribed tbe Kilkenny mob to hoot an I insult Fathei O'Halloran — or Father Dan, as his people call him — the friend did him a grievous disservice. Were there a n mbt in me minds ot the men ot Ci'stleconietr and Clough as to how they should vote, the insult must have decided them.

The political record oi ti>c } lace, h.iid to hi the l'.u icute etrongholei, is ii quite another complexioi. Go.vran made an ucenviable name tor itselt in the days of tin- Spt neer \ , b'^mng the thin unconvei ed Vieeu>y a magnificent welcjmjou t.?i* occasion of his visit then to. It is ue*r th-j re-ulence of Viscount Clifden, ot w ose iMa cm Lml bp.ncr wis tiu-t^e dining the Viscount's minority. Wlmi the Viscount came of agi 1 . his guardian went to U uvran, and though (Jjwian an 1 the /•'/•« nuiii's Journal weie m ajrevinent aboat the merits ot the Earl, befoie hebecame a Homi' liv ci , they dis.igit.ed then, a^ now with the pievailmg senUrueat ot tb<_ coun iv.

There was tuned in Coik last we-.k (.ending D c-inbi.r 20) a respected dignitary ot the Protestant Church, whose dea'. h many

Home Rulera will regret to learn — Chancellor Webster. He was a Protestant of the Whately School, but with a difference. Strong in opinion, he was eminently tolerant, and being tolerant he had no fears. He was a Protestant Home Ruler. One of the most useful little pamphlets issued by the Irish Press agency for the convereion of English opinion on the Home Rule question, before the conversion of English opinion became a matter of inexplicable indifference to the oflioeis of the agency — now. on their theory, without a reason fir existence — was Mr. Alfred Webbs collection of opinions from Protestants on the alleged dangers of persecution in the event of Home Rule. To the series of teuimonies to Irish Catholic tolerance, a very remarkable one was contributed by Chancellor Webster. He was born in Dublin, and lived his clerical life in Rebel Cork ; so he had come experience, and Lis witness to Catholic tolerance could not be gainsaid. Of course he shocked the bigots thereby ; and though he continued to preach at the Chapel Royal in the Castle Yard, he received more than one caution from the scribes of Unionism. He did not heed them, for he was guilty of an even more shocking act since.

On one of tbe several occasions when that subservient traitor, Father Kennedy, of Meelin, was being conveyed to prison for his miserable obsequiency to English dictation and the prejudices of the English wolves, the ranks of his police guards were broken through by a portly Protestant clergyman — aproned, g&.tered, and shovel-hatted, in a fashion that would make the most impertinent cadet of a District Inspector of the R.I.C. come to respectful attention. He made his way up to the captive C.C.. and shook him warmly by the hand. The intruder was the Protestant Chancellor of the Southern Diocese. Needless to say Unionist Cork was scandalised. The Cork Comtltutum gravely took him to task on the error of his ways. But the disciple of Whately could not see it, for all the logic and Protestantism which he had imbibed from his mister. He died, like Professor Galbraith, an unregenerate Home Ruler ; and his is one of the graves over which Protestant and Catholic, Unionist and Home Ruler, have stood in common sorrow. Men like him do not live in vain, as Irish Protestantism will yet recognise.