Our Roman Letter

New Zealand Tablet, 1 December 1921, Page 17

Our Roman Letter

(By "Stannous.")

The news of the appointment of Dublin's new Archbishop was received with joy by all of us here. The event was of special interest to those in the Irish College; for the new Archbishop spent many years there, first as a student, and subsequently as Vice-Rector. But there were not a few outside the college who hailed with "pleasure the news of his advancement. By his winning manner, his ripe accomplishments, and his general culture, he won the hearts of us all in the period of three years during which he lived here as Vice-Rector of the national college. It is all 20 years ago, but it seems like yesterday. He came to us on November 20, 1901. He left us on May 16, 1904. During those three academic years he earned the esteem of the students whom he governed, and I am sure that many a fireside tale has been told by priests in Ireland of the gentle courtesy and kindly strength of his collegiate rule. In a very special way he won the heart of his Rector, the late Monsignor Murphy, who often loved to dwell with words of affection on the help and sympathy and companionship afforded in those three anxious years of office. They had arrived to take up their duties almost at the same time. Together they had to set about the prosaic task of unravelling complicated finances and of establishing a new regime. Through many causes they got but little credit for their workj for one thing, their labors were without ostentation or advertisement. But thanks to the regime then inaugurated, they started the college forward on fresh lines of growth which by process of normal development has enabled it to attain a unique position among the national colleges of Rome, a position which sometimes calls forth the unwilling testimony of such an impartial critic as the Morning Post. Those of us who remember Monsignor Murphy recall him as one who was no mean judge of human character and human capacity. It was not my good fortune to know him well. But I have found some written words of his which bear witness, .after all this lapse of 20 years; to the current report of the estimate he held of his young subordinate. It has been my privilege recently to get a glimpse of two of the annual reports sent to the Irish bishops by Monsignor Murphy. The first v of these refers to the arrival of Dr. Byrne. The second speaks of his resignation and departure. Here are the written words:

"On November 26, 1901, Rev. Edward J. Byrne, of the diocese of Dublin, was appointed Vice-Rector. An experience of now practically two years shows that a more admirable appointment could not have\been made." "As several bishops, Irish and colonial, were in Rome while Father Byrne was. Vice-Rector, nothing need here be said of his singular. fitness for the position, nor of the diligence with- which all the interests committed to him were guarded. His term of office was a short one, but it was rich in varied service for the college." Words like these, written in the full light of contemporary experience, are of far more value than mere personal recollections, in testifying to Monsignor Murphy's opinion of him who is now Archbishop ;of Dublin. No one who has ever met Dr. Byrne can fail to be won by his personal charm and his gentle suavity. But for all his suavity, he can be uncompromising enough at t times, at least, to judge from tho reputation he gained here 20 years ago. Like many another official of the Irish College before and since, he was not infrequently brought up against the insolent assumption that it is a sort of crime for an Irishman to believe that his country is as good as anyone else's country and that it is a grave social misdemeanor to act according to that belief. In this regard, a friend of mine still relates with gusto a piquant little story as to the manner in which the charming Vice-Rector once disposed of a certain legal luminary who once cast his light on tho Irish colony here. It seems that the gentleman in question was a wellknown Irish judge, whom I shall call Judge X. He was a 'very good Catholic, but a very harmless sort of Irishman. , It was his constant pleasure to sneer at the Old Irish Party. One of the most prominent of tho Irish Members of Parliament had recently visited Rome, had been cordially received by the Irish here, and with the usual hospitality had been entertained at the Irish College. The learned Judge was distressed and dissatisfied thereat, and one day in the midst of a small company he gave expression to his wonder how men like that could be received in an institution of the kind. Dr. Byrne was in the room and heard the complaint. "Oh, that is quite all right," he smilingly observed, "we entertain all sorts of visitors at the college: why we have even, entertained Judge X." Those who remember these and similar incidents have ■no difficulty in making up their minds as to the new Archbishop's views with regard to his country and that country's aspirations. Keen indeed was their indignation, and keen the indignation of every Irishman here, when they read in some of the Italian newspapers one of the usual inspired paragraphs by means of which the dirty work of English propaganda is carried on here in Rome. The paragraph was to the effect that Dr. Byrne's appointment had the sanction of the British Government, implying of course that the appointment would not have been made without the approval of the British Legation to the Holy See." It reminds one of the cock in the fable thinking that tho sun rose because he crowed. The Morning Post has been good enough to tell us for what real purpose that British Legation exists. Unhappily for its promoters, it has been a miserable failure in all its chief undertakings. It tried to make a Rector of the Irish College and failed. It tried to secure a condemnation affecting Sinn - Fein and failed. It tried to x have the hunger-strike condemned and failed. It tried to have Dr. Mannix sat on and failed. And if reports are true and if it really tried to interfere in the Dublin appointment, it failed. The Orangemen and Kensitites periodically protest against the British Legation to the Vatican. Of course, they are bigoted in their protest. Perhaps some day they may put their objections in the hands of the Anti-Waste Party, as an economic venture. The Legation has been such a failure in achieving the chief purposes for which it was made, that an Anti-Waste vote would suppress it within half an hour.

The letters of negotiation preparatory to a conference on the Irish question are providing much comment here. Irishmen in Rome -are wondering what political outcast has been supplying the British Premier with extracts from Davis and O'Connell. The Davis extract-is 'particularly misleading. The only place I ever found it was in Sir Chas. Gavan Duffy's Life of Davis. It may be read there in the chapter describing Davis's conflicts with O'Connell.

After the failure of Clontarf, Davis was inclined to con- x sider Federalism as a temporary and honorable compromise of the Irish difficulty. It was at this time that he wrote, under the title of a Federalist, an anonymous letter to the Duke of Wellington expounding the Federalist position. The extract employed by the British Premier is taken from that letter, without any reference whatever to the context itself or to the temporary expedient with which it was concerned. It is a misleading extract, giving an utterly wrong view to those unlearned in the history of the movements with which the name of Thomas Davis is associated. It neither represents the mind of Davis nor in the original letter was it signed with his name. To employ it with the sanction of that name in an official note such as Lloyd George wrote to the supreme representative of our people under date August 26 lastto employ it as a sort of verbal smoke-scroen— to be dishonest in principle and slanderous in fact.

Recently, I came across a French appreciation of the British Premier. It is a brochure published three years ago, arid founded on a conference given in Paris on October 18, 1918. v In more senses than one such a warm appreciation of the, Welsh Wizard would be a little bit out of fashion among Frenchmen now. The author, Gaston Rageot, lias interesting things to say on his hero. Treating of the struggle with the House of Lords of 1910, he gives tho following from a speech delivered by Lloyd George in tho beginning of that year:— "I have Celtic blood in my veins. There is more Celtic blood in the veins of the Englishman everywhere than is commonly admitted, and if you were to drain all the drops of Celtic blood from his veins the Englishman would be sufficiently anaemic. The Celt has an irresistible love of liberty. He can be trodden underfoot, and he has been. He can be oppressed, and God knows he has been. But you can never extinguish his passion for Jiberty. Tread him in the mire, and his children's children will rise with the shouts of liberty upon their lips. I come before you as the descendant of a race that has combated Caesar." It is a long cry from all this to the speeches of Lord Macaulay. Lately I have been looking out some of that nobleman's pronouncements. The following extract from a speech made by him in 1833 on Repeal of the Union may not be without interest: "If, on a fair trial, it should be found that England and Ireland cannot exist happily together as parts of one empire, in God's name let them separate. I wish to see them joined as the limbs of a well-knit body are joined. In such a body the members assist each other. They are nourished by the same food. If one member suffer, all suffer with it. If one member rejoice, all rejoice with it. But I do not wish to see the countries united like those wretched twins from Siam, who were exhibted here a little while ago, by an unnatural ligament which made each the constant plague of the other, always in each other's way, more helpless than others because they had twice as many hands, slower than others because they had twice as many legs, sympathising with each other only in evil, not feeling each other's pleasures, not supported by each other's ailments, but tormented by each other's infirmtt ; e3 and certain to perish miserably by each other's dissolu ■ tion." The value of this extract is enhanced by the fact that Macaulay was so fundamentally anti-Irish and anti-Catholic despite his Liberal professions. \As an instance of the latter feature it may be recalled that he supported the Maynooth Grant because he desired above all things, to get'the Irish clergy eventually under the complete control of the 7 British Crown. - .

The v long summer is drawing to its close. In a couple of days we welcome here a Franciscan Tertiary pilgrimage from Ireland. After that the students come back to the city, and within a few weeks academic Rome will be itself again. There will be few changes to record among my friends. One such, however, has left us, after many years' sojourn here. Rev. Michael Connolly, the genial Prior of the Augustinian Church of St. Patrick, has been transferred to the house of his Order in Cork. By his departure Irishmen in Rome lose one who was held in esteem and affection by us all.