THE STOKE CASES.

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XXIV, Issue 2, 10 January 1901, Page 3

THE STOKE CASES.

By 'Watchful.'

FACTS TO BEAR IN MIND

I havb read with great pleasure the able ritume of the Stoke • man-hunt in the Tablkt of the 20th ult. Aocurate as it is a? far as it goes, there are atill Borne facts which the Catholics of Neve Zealand should know, and I propose to place these before your readers. The great outcry which has been raised about the affair — despite all the protestations to the contrary— is due, not bo much to solicitude for the orphan children, as to religious bigotry and political malevolenoe. If the Nelson Charitable Aid Board did not desire to introduce the religious element, it is not a little remarkable that Messrs. Harley and Rout specially invited Mr. Jessie Piper to aooompany them on their philanthropic raid. Mr. Piper is an Orangeman whose animus against the Stoke institution — indeed against everything Catholic — is notorious in Nelson. Again, it is not a little curious that a batch of the boy- witnesses against the Brothers were provided with special accommodation at a Wesleyan conventicle, while a local parson delivered himself of a vile diatribe against the Catholic Church. If any doubt exists as to the part played bj the NO-POPERY ELEMENT. in this wretched business, it should be dispelled by the fact that at a public meeting in Nelson — addressed by pious parsons and by

freethought oracles who hate the parsons, but unite with them in hating- their common enemy, the ' Scarlet Woman ' — an individual oalling himself ' a minister of the Church of Christ ' got off an attack on Catholic convents and religions Orders worthy of the drunken adventurer Slattery himself. As a matter of fact Slattery — unfortunately for his purse and fame— came among us too soon. Had he come to Nelson since the Stoke affair he would be lionised in such a manner as to put our returning troopers in the background, and he would probably be requisitioned to contest the Parliamentary representation of Nelson city. TUB AKTI STOKK PBKSB. Allusion ia made iv your article to the conduct of the Nelson Evening Mail, whose efforts to stir up feeling have been worthy of the vilest specimens of the gutter and garbage Press. But while, generally speaking, the Press of the Colony has treated the affair with becoming moderation, there are one or two papers whose attitude has been equally as reprehensible as that of the Evening Mail. I allude particularly to the Wellington Pout. This paper professes Liberalism, like many of the Continental sectaries, and, while it pats its Catholic readers on the back now and then— chiefly bj some flattering reference to Ireland — it more frequently displays the cloven hoof of rabid sectarianism. Now we have a veiled reference to the pernicious influence of religious orders in France ; to-morrow we shall probably read a labored editorial on Spanish decadence and the evil influence of ecclesiasticism in Spain. The Stoke affair was a veritable godsend to this journalistic pillar of anti-Catholic intolerance, chiefly because the Post hoped to injure the Premier thereby. One leading article contained a most insulting reference to the Church, and the writer dared to say that members of Parliament were afraid of offending ' a great and powerful Church 1 by probing the Stoke affair to the bottom. Later on, when the little coterie of political ' yellow pups ' thought they had succeeded in withdrawing all monetary aid from Catholio industrial schools, the Post gleefully whooped that ' the fate of private industrial schools was sealed ! ' I have seen a journalistic bigot brought to his knees before to-day, and if the Catholios of Wellington were of my way of thinking, they would teach the Evening Post a lesson which would compel it to refrain from gratuitously insulting them in the future. Even if all the attacks made on the Stoke school were borne oat by fact, NO FAIR-MINDED MAN would condemn the Catholic community therefor. Scandals there have ever been, and will be again, and if isolated instances of human frailty are to be accepted as conclusive evidence against institutions, then what shall we say of the public schools of the Colony 1 I have known within recent years two cases of schoolmasters being dismissed for immoral conduct with girl-pupils. I have known three instances of a shameful disease breaking out among the children attending public schools. I have known a teacher, an elderly married man, to be dismissed for impropriety with a female pupilteacher. What would those who never tire of boasting about ' our national system of education ' say if Catholics were always dinning these scandals in their ears .' The very reasonable reply would be that such instances did not necessarily condemn the system itself. Yet we have during the late session of Parliament seen professing Liberals anxious not merely to condemn beforehand the Brothers who have since been triumphantly acquitted, but leaving no effort untried to injure all Catholio institutions in New Zealand. The specious story which these POLITICAL PANDEBEBS will no doubt tell their Catholic constituents will be what the 'cute Mr. ' Tarn ' Mackenzie has since been careful to promulgate — that the State should found orphanages for the exclusive use of the several denominations. Granting, however, for argument's sake only, that such a school is practicable, what would its adoption at the present juncturej uncture amount to ? It would be tantamount to a vote of censure on every Catholic orphanage in the Colony ; it would practically mean that the good nuns and Brothers who, without even the poor reward of popular approbation, are devoting themselves to the care of the homeless and fatherless, are not doing their d%ty ; it would be giving a coloring to the vile slanders of such depraved wretches as Slattery and some of his New Zealand prototypes. Yet this is precisely what an organised nest of bigots have attempted, and in which they were aided by some so-called Liberals who have time and again been glad to receive Catholic support. In your article oaly one division list is published. Permit me to supply a few more, as showing who attempted last session to aggravate the grievances of the Catholic population, and who stood up for common fair-play. Let your readers tarn to Hansard No. 28 of last session (page 172), and they will there find that MR JOHN HUTCHESON, one of the members for Wellington City, complained that children attending private schools were allowed free travel on the railways, although they passed State schools en route ; and he moved to reduoe the item 'Railway fares for school-children £3,300* by £1 as an indication that the House disapproved of this. There voted for his motion seven members : Messrs. Atkinson, A. L. D. Fraser, W. Fraser, Herri es, Meredith, J. Hutchesou, and Pirani, while the following members — 31 in all — voted against it: Messrs. E. G. Allen, Arnold, Barclay, Bennet, Buddo, Carroll, Collins, Dunoan, £11, Field, Graham, Hall, Hall-Jones, Laurenson, Lawry, McGowan, R. MoKenzie, MoLachlan, Mills, Morrison, Palmer, Parata, Rhodes, Seddon, Smith, Symes, Tanner, Ward, Witheford, Stevens, and Flatman. On the following page will be found ANOTHER INTEBEBTINQ DIVISION. Mr. Meredith — political arch-priest of King Billy — moved to reduce the vote for private industrial schools : ' St. Mary's, Auckland ; St. Joseph's, Wellington ; St. Mary's Nelson ; St. Vincent de Paul's,

Dunedin, £3,400,' by £5 as au indication that all aid to these institutions should be withdrawn. Ten members followed Mr. Meredith in this dastardly attempt : Messrs. Arnold, Atkinson, Collins, Graham, tferries, Lewis, Pirani, Rhodes, Tanner, and Hutobeeon. Those who voted ' No ' were 26, namely : Messrs. B. G. Allen, Ben net, Buddo, Carroll, Duncan, Ell, Field, Flatman, A. L. D. Fraser, Hall, Hall-Jone3, Laurenson, Lowry, McGowan, R. McKenzie. McLachlan, Palmer, Parata, Seddon, Smith, Stevens, fcymes, Ward, Witheford, Mills, and Morrison. Now let us glance at the division lists appearing in No. 32 of Hansard. ME. G. TV. UTTSSELL moved to strike out the word ' inspection ' from the title of the Industrial Schools .dipt Amendment Bill, with the object of amending the Bill so as to provide for State control pure and simple. This division raised the whole question of whether the scant capitation now paid to private industrial schools should continue, and 24 members actually supported Mr. ' Ricketty ' Russell's amendment, namely : Messrs. Arnold, Atkinson, Barclay, Buddo, Collins, Colvin, Fowlds, Graham, Hanan, Henries, Hornsby, Lang, Laurenson, Lewis, T. Mackenzie, R. McKenzie, McNab, Meredith, Pirani, Tanner, J. W. Thompson, Wilford, Hntcheson, and J. W. Russell. Twenty-three voted for justice to Catholic orphanages : Messrs. E. G. Allen, Carncross, Duncan, Ell, Field, A. L. D. Fraser, Hall, Heke, Hogg, Lethbridge, McGowan, Monk, Napier, O'Meara, Palmer, Parata, Seddon, Smith, Stevens, Ward, Witheford, Mills, and Morrison. The following members ' paired ' : For Mr. Russell's amendment : Messrs. Massey, W. Fraser, and Hardy ; against : Messrs Carroll, Hall-Jones, McLachlan, Thus by one vote the word ' inspection ' was struck out, and for the moment it seemed as if the bigots would win. THE PREMIER, however, moved that the word ' regulation ' be inserted instead of the word just struck out, and this was carried by 32 to 25. The 'ayes' were as follows: — Messrs. E. G. Allen, Buddo, Carncrosa, Duncan, Ell, Field, Flatman, Fowlds, A. L. D. Fraßer. Gilfedder, Hall, Heke, Hogg, Houston, Lawry, Lethbridge, MoGowan, McLachlan, Napier, O'Meara, Palmer, Parata, Pere, Seddon, Smith, Stevens, Steward, Symes, Ward, Witheford, Mills, and Morrison. The following voted against the Premier's amendment : — Messrs. Arnold, Atkinson, Barclay, Collins, Colvin, Graham, Hanan, Hardy, Herries, Hornsby, Lang, Laurenson, Lewis, T. Mackenzie, R. McKenzie, McNab, Millar, Monk, Pirani, Rhodes, G. W. Russell, Tanner, J. W. Thompson, J. Hutche6on. and Meredith. Pairs : For the Premier's amendment : Carroll, Hall-Jones ; against : Massey and W. Fraser. I pass over several divisions of minor importance and come to MB. MILLAR'S AMENDMENT on page G2l. To properly appreciate the nature of this amendment, it is necessary to state clause 4. It reads as follows :—: — ' With respect to every such private or local school as aforesaid already established at the time of the passing of this Act, the following special provisions shall apply — " (I) In no case shall any child be hereafter committed to such school. " (2) At the expiration of six months after the passing of this Act every such school shall c^ase to be a rcqool within the meaning of the principal Act. and no public money bhail thereafter be g) anted in respect thereof."' Now the object of this clause was to prevent any industrial Bchool controlled by any Order (such as the Marists) whose head was outside the Colony receiving any capitation. But Mr. Millar, who owes his political existence to the votes of Catholic laborers, wanted to make the clause apply to all private industrial schools, and he therefore moved to omit the word • such ' in the first line of the clause, and 27 members voted for this rascally amendment, namely : Messrs Arnold, Atkinson, Barclay, Buddo, Collins, Colvin, Fowlds, Graham, Hardy, Hanan, Heke, Herries, Hogg, Huteheson, Lang, Laurenson, Lewis, T. Mackenzie, R. McKenzie, McNab, Meredith, Pirani, Rhodes, G. W. Russell, Tanner, J. W. Thompson, Hornsby, and Millar. The following voted against the amendment : — Meisrs E. G. Allen, Carncross, Duncan, Ell, Field. Flatman, A. L. D. Fraser, Gilfedder, Hall, Houston, Lawry, McGowan, McLachlan, Napier, O'Meara, Palmer, Parata, Pere, Seddon, Smith, Stevens, Steward, Symes, Ward, Witheford, Mills, and Morrison. Thns the bigots won by a vote, and great was the delight among them. But they soon found that their object had not been attained. Mr. McNab, who suggested Mr. Millar's amendment (so the story goes), came in for a great ' keel-hauling.' The words 'as aforesaid ' were left in the second paragraph of the clause, aud therefore the meaning was precisely what it was before the word 'such' was excised. The Bill had now to go through the ordeal of the Legislative Council, and some VIGOROUS CANVASSING was resorted to in order to ensure the excision of the odious words 'as aforesaid.' Ido not propose to give the Council's division lists, because that body ia not elective, and the attitude of members towards our schools cannot be checked. But certainly the Legislative Council did not justify its existence as a body one of whose alleged f uDctions it is to place a wholesome curb on panic legislation. The words were eliminated, and the Bill passed the Council absolutely withdrawing all aid from the Catholic industrial schools after twelve months 1 But the Council's amendment had yet to be acquiesced in by the popular Chamber. The Premier moved, on the Bill being reported to the House as amended, that the amendment be not agreed to, and that a committee, comprising Captain Russell, Mr Palmer, and himself, be appointed to confer with a committee of the Council. The Council, by 15 votes to 10, decided not to insist on the amendment, and the

BILL BECAME LAW without effecting the purpose for which a coterie of parliamentary bigots, spurred on by the Orange lodges of the Colony, and by snob, papers as the Nelson, Mail and the Evening Post, had been scheming for months. The crucial division occurred when the House, on the motion of the Premier, was anked not to agree to the excision by the Legislation Council of the words ' as aforesaid.' There voted for his motion 35 members : Messrs. E. G. Allen, Bennet, Bollard, Carno>o*s, Carroll, Ducean, Field, Fisher, Flatman, A. T, D. Framr, Gilfedder, Hall, Hall-Jones, Heke, Houston, Kaihau, Lawry, MoGo*au, McGuire, MoLachlan, Mills, Morri a on, Palmer, Pants, Pere, W. R. Russell, Seddon, Smith, Stevens, S'eward, Ward, Witheford, O'Meara, and Symes. Noes 27 : Messrs Arnold, Atkinpon, Barclay, Buddo, Collins, E I, FowlrN, W. Fraser, Guiur.ew, Graham, HarJy, Herries, Higg, Uornsby, Hu r 'heson, Lan<r, Liurnnson, T. Mackenzie, McNab, Millar, Rhodes, G. W. Russell, Tanner, R. Thompson, J. W. Thompson, Pirani, and Meredith. It has been said that the Government would not have won this division had certain members not refrained from voting. It is quite true that several members purposely absented themselves, evidently believing they had already done enough to conciliate the bigots without unduly offending their Catholic supporters. But even had these jelly-fish politicians voted, the result would have been the same. I would like, before concluding, to allude to the conduct of one member who voted with the Noes in the last-mentioned division, MB. A. B. GUINNESS, Chairman of the Committees. This gentleman owes his seat in Parliament for years past to the votes of staunch Catholio supporters, and, despite the fact that at the last election he was opposed by a most estimable Catholio gentleman (Mr. Hannan, of Greymouth), it is beyond question that Mr. Guinness owes his handsome majority to Catholic support. Tet he was amongst the most virulent, though certainly not the most conspicuous, of those who attempted to intensify the cruel hardship Catholics already suffer, by withdrawing all capitation grants from their orphanages I Mr. Guinness did one characteristically clever trick when the division took place on Mr. G. W. Russell's amendment to strike out the word ' inspection.' As Chairman of the Committees, he could only vote in the event of a tie, Knowing that the division would be close and that the Deputy -Chair man of Committees, Major Steward, was friendly to Catholic orphanages, Mr. Guinness absented himself ; Major Steward's vote was lost by his occupying the chair, and the amendment was carried by one Vote. Thus Mr. Guinness avoided the awkward predicament of deciding a tie and at the same time helped the coterie whose efforts had his cordial sympathy. On the final division, however, he ' came out of his shell ' and voted to rob our orphanages. What a rich reward for his Catholio supporters 1 Space will not allow me to detail the conduct of other members — notably one West Coast member who received every Catholic vote in his electorate at the laet election, and of another who received 50 per cent, of the Catholio support, although his opponent was a Catholic. But the following lint of members who voted against Catholic orphanogfs include those who certainly received either the entire Catholic vote or a large mt ature of it: Meatr*. Hanan, McNab, G. W. Rusßtll, Colling LcwU, Graham, R. McK*-nr.ie, Guinness, Colvin, Hornnby, Millar, Arnold, and Barclay. Ido not presume that this list includes all the representatives who were supported by Catholic electors, but I am well within the mark in saying that not one of the above could have been elected but for the support of those whom last session they tried their level best to insult and injure.