Notes

New Zealand Tablet, 25 May 1911, Page 962

Notes

A Misdirected « Argument' An American philosopher, in one of his ' afferisms,' compares quarrelsomely prejudiced people to a blind mule. They are, says he, ' anxious to kick, but kan't tell whare. 1 A number of anonymous Orange scribblers in the Christchurch papers —and other writers nearer home who might fairly be expected to reach a higher controversial levelin default of something more solid to kick at' are hawking about a wild utterance attributed to Major Mcßride, the husband of that extraordinary Englishwoman best known by her maiden name of Miss Maud Gonne. Miss Gonne, who is the daughter of an English officer and whose relatives are all connected with the Government service, posed for several years as an extreme Irish revolutionist, and the Conservative Government permittedif it did not encourageher to shriek all sorts of fiery stuff to such audiences as would tolerate her, while at the same time the elected representatives of the people were having their crowns cracked by the police for daring to attempt to address their constituents at legal, peaceful, and constitutional gatherings, and were sent time after time to the plank bed and durance vile for the ' crime' of referring even in the mildest way, to the open, notorious, and admitted fact of jury-packing. Reverting to Major McBride, we have only to mention that this worthy is not a Nationalist. He is a member of the Sinn Fein party — an organisation whose policy has always been opposed to that of the Nationalist Party. So far, therefore, as Home Rule or the visit of Nationalist delegates is concerned, Major Mcßride's remarks have neither interest;, importance, nor even relevance. , And regarding such utterances generally, the following words. of the Christchurch Evening Neu;s —taken from a thoughtful leader in its issue of May 20apply: •-.••' It is noticeable that many of the writers of the letters referred to are still slaves to the formulas and beliefs of thirty years ago, although in the meantime there has been a vast change in the relations

of Great Britain and . Ireland, in the character of the Home Rule movement, and in the conditions under which Home Rule can now be applied. There is no longer anv question of separation, except in the minds of sundry wild Irishmen, whose views count no more than those of the cranky Socialist who insists on revolutionary Socialism forthwith.' The Financial Relations Enquiry 'lt cannot be said,' remarks the Catholic Times, 'that in the selection of the committee appointed to consider the financial relations between Ireland and Great Britain and to distinguish as far as possible between Irish local expenditure and Imperial expenditure in Ireland the Government betrayed a partisan spirit. The members of the committee are men who are distinguished for great practical knowledge. The chairman, Sir Henry Primrose, K.C.8., C. 5.1., having been chairman of the Board of Customs' and Board of Inland Revenue, is .well fitted for his position by experience. The remarkable ability of the Most Rev. Dr. Kelly, Bishop of Ross, has been attested on the Agricultural Board of Ireland, the Royal Commission on the Poor Laws and Relief of Distress, and in connection with other important undertakings. It would be difficult to find anyone bitter able to examine the subject in all its bearings, to take an equitable and impartial view on every phase of it, and to suggest how any difficulties that may present themselves can be surmounted. Dr. Kelly's judgment is as sound as his talents are high, and as one who has always been in contact with the people, his appointment inspires confidence amongst democrats. Lord Pirrie's success as the head of a world-renowned firm and a leader of enterprise in Belfast, is a guarantee of his fitness to serve on the committee. The other members can best be described as exceptionally qualified financial experts W. G. S. Adams, Reader in Political Theory and Institutions at the University of Oxford, and recently head of the Statistics and Intelligence Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland; Mr. Henry Neville Gladstone, senior partner of Ogilvy, Gillanders and Co., of London and Liverpool, director of several public companies, and a son of Mr. Gladstone who introduced the Home Rule Bill in 1886 and 1893; Mr. F. H. Jackson, Director of thy Bank of England; and Mr. W. Plender, President of the Institute of Chartered Accountants. The idea of adding the name of Mr. P. J. O'Neill, chairman of the Dublin County Council, as that of an Irish representative of local authorities is one which will meet with general approval.' » Infinite Arrogance ' We learn from the Pahiatua Herald that the Rev. J. Pattison (Presbyterian Missioned referring to the question of Bible in Schools during the course of his address at the local Bible tercentenary meeting, ' got off' the following piece of colossal foolishness: 'The Roman Catholic Church admitted that tho Bible was the basis of our civilisation, and he considered that while that body had their own parochial schools it was infinite arrogance on their part to., practically dictate to them (the Protestant denominations) what they were not to teach their children. "They had no more right," said Mr. Pattison, "to do that any more than we had to go into their schools and tell them what they are not to teach their children." ' * We are sorry to have to point outrespectfully, but emphaticallythat the reverend gentleman is making himself ridiculous. If he would shake up his ' thinkery ' before discussing these questions, he would see that the essential difference between the Catholic parochial schools and the State schools is that in respect to the former the whole cost is paid, solely and exclusively, by the Catholic body; whereas in respect to the State schools the cost is paid, not by the Protestant denominations only, but by Catholics, Jews, Agnostics, etc., as well. In no sense, therefore, can the Protestant denominations claim the public schools as specially their schools. So long as Catholics are taxed to build, maintain, and equip the State schools,_ so long will they claim, and exercise to the full, their right to a say whether religion shall be taught in the schools. There is, it is true, infinite arrogance' attached to the present situation, but it is not on the side of the 'Roman Catholic Church.' It is on the side of those who calmly propose to Protestantise the State schools, and to use Catholic tax-money for the purpose. If Brother Pattison can induce his cc-religionists to put their hands in their pockets and build their own schools, or can persuade them to agree to a refund to the Catholic body of the ■ quota of taxation contributed by the latter towards the maintenance of the public schools, he will have done something substantial towards gaining for his denomination the right to a clear field in respect to the religious instruction which they may desire to have given in the schools. Justice to Catholics, however, or personal financial self-

sacrifice, are the last things our Presbyterian friends are likely to think of in this connection; and, in the meantime, they certainly do not strengthen their position by talking wild and woolly nonsense of the kind above set forth.