Notes

New Zealand Tablet, 16 March 1911, Page 483

Notes

A Vindication In the course of the discussion which has arisen in the daily papers regarding the allegation of favoritism in the Railway Department made against the present Minister for Railways (the Hon. J. A. Millar) in the columns of the N.Z. Railway Officers' Advocate, the Christchurch Evening News appears to have introduced Sir J. G. Ward's name into the controversy, and to have hinted that the promotion to Palmerston North of the Premier's brother, Mr. W. T. Ward —a courteous, efficient, and universally respected officer in the Postal Departmentwas the result of Ministerial favoritism. The suggestion appears to be utterly unwarranted; and the N.Z. Railway Officers' Advocate meets it with the following broad-side: 'ln introducing Sir J. G. Ward's name into the discussion the Evening News adopts the same course as it rebukes others for taking, but it is unfortunate for its contention that the promotion of Mr. Ward to Palmerston North and elsewhere was—(l) In accordance with the Post and Telegraph Classification Act. (2) To fill a vacancy ; and (3) The person promoted was next in order for promotion. (4) He was fully qualified for the position. 'lf,' concludes the Advocate, the Evening Ncics implies that Sir J. G. Ward granted all our requests irrespective of whether they were reasonable or otherwise it is not well-informed, for we are in a position to say that that gentleman did not concede anything without proper investigation.' The Other Side We refer elsewhere to the . letter recently written to the London Times by the Rev. Dr. Hanson regarding ' Romish tyranny ' in Ireland, a considerable extract from which appeared in last week's issue of the Christian Outlook. We gladly acknowledge the spirit of fairness which has prompted our contemporary to reproduce this week the following 'set-off' to Dr. Hanson's one-sided utterance It is diverting to notice that while the Ulster true blues still stick to the ' Home Rule-Rome Rule ' shibboleth, another section of Protestants are equally confident that Home Rule means ' death to the priests.'

Says the Outlook: l There are always two sides to every question, and as revealing the other side of the Irish question to that given in Dr. Hanson's manifesto, from which we quoted last week, we append a note by the editor of the Young Man (Rev. W. Kingscote-Greensland), which, under the title, "Ireland and Ulster," appears in the January issue of that magazine:— "I wonder whether I dare say a word on the vexed question of the North of Ireland's attitude just now. I have lately spent ten days in Dublin, Portadown, Newry, and Belfast, lecturing and preaching, and have discussed the situation with all sorts and conditions of Methodists, Presbyterians, Irish Churchmen, Unionists, and Nationalists. " And I am absolutely sure I am right in bringing back with me the conviction that things are a thousand times better than when Mr. Gladstone gave us his Home Rule Rill twenty years ago. Of course, you still have the old, cruel, intolerant Orange spirit; but it is dying, dying as all evil things must. 1 did not converse with one single minister or clergyman who showed the old intolerant spirit. And always remember one thingthe Roman Church does not desire [\ Home Rule. If it comes, the priests' days are numbered, and they know it. I could say much more, but my space is gone. Protestantism has nothing to lose from a Parliament in Dublin, and religion religion, not Orangeism has in the long run everything to gain." ' Our contemporary also prints this week 'a considerable portion of the British Weekly article on ' Mixed Marriages' to which reference was made in our last week's issue.