Notes

New Zealand Tablet, 12 June 1913, Page 34

Notes

The White-Washing of Canon Garland We print elsewhere in this issue the remarkable deliverance published by the Bible in State Schools League, officially white-washing Oanon Garland in respect to the serious charges of misrepresentation and controversial dishonesty laid against him by Bishop Cleary. • We had intended to refer to the matter in our leading column’s, but owing to the exigencies of space'our comments must now stand over until next issue. ; ■ An Auckland Tribute , '' The following friendly and entertaining paragraph anent Bishop Cleary’s Dunedin lecture appeared in the N.Z: .Observer of June 7: ; —‘ Scotchbyterian Dunedin seems to regard Bishop Cleary as a citizen, perhaps because, he once lived there and edited the Tablet,

Dunedin .St generously overlooks the fact that he is not a Presbyterian and hands him praise for his speech against the Bible-in-Schools propagandists and says that though he spoke over his time limit “ there would be few people of the vast audience who could have wished his address to have been briefer than it was. 'When he was not analytical he was scornful. Always he was bright.” It’s true that Bishop Cleary can speak as forcefully as he can write and always , be analytical and logical. The combination isn’t usual, but the Bishop’s fervent phrases are like Euclid expounded by Isaiah, and there are plenty of people who haven’t any particular religious preferences Who would Walk through the wet for the privilege of having the intellectual pleasure of hearing Dr. Cleary’s cold wit and fiery impulse combined. in debate.’ ‘ The Monk and the Woman ’ The Monk and the Woman’ is having a troubled passage through the North Island; and the press critics are making it perfectly clear that the New Zealand. public have no time for offensive productions of this sort. Thus the Hastings Standard of May 22 remarks : ‘ “ The Monk and the Woman,’’ a melodrama by Frederick Melville, was produced by the Marlow Dramatic Company at the Princess Theatre, Hastings, last evening. . . To say that the play is one that appeals to the good taste of the public would be incorrect. The mounting of the piece, with the exception of the periods when the limited stage space precluded the whole effects from being shown, was excellent, and the acting in some instances reached a very high standard, but the author has attempted to portray a story which in itself is ridiculously absurd. He has produced burlesque not melodrama, and that this was obvious to the large majority of the audience last night was made very evident throughout, the performance. “The Monk and the Woman’’ has been condemned as being an insult to the religious beliefs of a certain section of the community, and probably some theatregoers who witnessed last night’s production may hold similar views but the whole scheme of the play appeared ,as an absurdity, and that being the case, it is harmless.’ * The Taranaki Herald of June 6 is still more emphatic, and condemns the production in round, set terms. After mentioning that the company ‘ played to a fair house,’ our contemporary remarks:, ‘ The play is one which is calculated to give great offence to religious people, and especially so to members of a particular Church, which is much to be deplored. Somehow it goes against the grain to see a subject which is held in Veneration by a large section of the Christian community held up to ridicule. Unfortunately there is a tendency nowadays to treat religious subjects with scant reverence, but one may imagine that few thinking people left the theatre last night without a feeling of regret that the modern stage had lent itself to the production of a religious burlesque such as they had just witnessed.’ Two Newman Anecdotes In reviewing the Hon. Stephen Coleridge’s Memories, recently published, the Guardian (Anglican) quotes some of Mr. Coleridge’s* reminiscences of Cardinal Newman. Here is one: —‘He was often very humorous in a gentle, winning way. I remember once him telling us after dinner.about some High Church Anglican, whose name I have now forgotten, who travelled to Italy, and when he got to Rome went to a service in one of the churches, and, being an advanced Churchman, essayed to participate in the ceremonial, kneeling when the priest knelt and standing when he stood; and just at the conclusion of the service he noted on looking round that he was the only man in the congregation— the other worshippers being women. ‘‘The fact was,’’ said the Cardinal, “he had been churched.” ’ * And here is the Cardinal in yet another unfamiliar aspect: —‘ He came on one of his periodical visits when

my boy Johnnie was about three years old, and about the middle of breakfast, according to custom, he was brought down and sat as usual on my wife’s knee, who was just opposite the Cardinal at table. Ido not think the old man saw any little children very often in an intimate way. . ' . After, gazing at them silently for a little while he became visibly moved, and rising from the table he murmured in a low voice. Half introspectively, as it were, “I think I must bless him.” He came round the table, and laid his hand on the little child’s head, and said a few inaudible words of benediction. I think every one present was touched, and glad to have been present at so beautiful a moment.’