Mr. A. Langdale in a letter to the _London Daily News_ puts the Catholic
view upon the education question with accuracy and yet with refreshing
terseness. "We can accept," he writes, "no compromise, and must have our
own Catechism, taught to our own children, in our own schools, by our
own masters. We will accept a 'conscience clause,' and open our schools
to all comers, and, as a fact, do. We will open our schools to
Government inspection, and gladly abide by payments by results. All we
desire is a fair field and no favor. One thing we can't and won't do,
and that is to suffer our children to receive religious instruction
which is not our own, and equally to accept teaching as a system in
which religious teaching is not included. Now there are doubtless a
great many who think we ought to be contented with unsectarian religious
instruction, and some who even utter something of not having any Popery
taught. Quite so, and to the end of all time the opinion of some will be
opposed to the opinions of others. Well, we say our religion is at
stake, and we can accept no less, and it is oppression and tyranny to
deprive us of our rights. We pay our taxes, we pay our rates, we even
provide our own schools, we educate our own teachers, and subscribe
largely to our schools, all under Government approval, and we submit to
a conscience clause. All we ask is that our secular teaching shall,
under Government inspection, be paid for at the same rate as similar
teaching is paid for in any other school. We say this is our first and
paramount interest and liberty; to refuse it is persecution. I and
thousands more are true Liberals heart and soul, and yet are forced to
go as a matter of primary duty and do violence to every wish of one's
heart, and support a Tory solely because the Liberal candidate refuses
to recognize any Denominational system. It is no Liberty, but a cruel
imposition of a religious intolerance."
Ingratitude of France in the Irish Struggle.
Not the least remarkable, though perhaps accountable, feature of the
present Anglo-Irish crisis is to be found in the thinly disguised
hostility with which our struggle for independence is viewed by the
nations of Europe. One might at first be inclined to think that
gratitude to the countrymen of those splendid fellows, without whose
heads and hands the long series of English triumphs since 1688 over her
bitterest foe had ne'er been broken, would have secured for us, if not
encouragement, neutrality on the part of France. Not so, however. Spain
alone, of European States refuses to take sides against us (Russia, for
obvious causes, cannot be regarded as unbiassed); and Spain, as many of
us know, claims a kinship with Ireland hardly less strong, if more
legendary, than that which exists between America and England. As a
matter of fact, our precious "sister" has been plying the hose with
exceptional success. She has so saturated and stunned the Continental
public with the thick stream of falsehood about Ireland and her people
that the poor creature, half befuddled by the whole business, commits
itself to approval of an act which calm reflection might convince it was
indefensible. This gullible public has been taught by England to believe
that we are a race of treacherous and incorrigible savages, ignorant of
and indifferent to the common decencies of life; a nation of brawlers
and beggars, loafers and drunkards. We are, moreover, in sympathy with
those scourges of its own lands, the Communist, the Nihilist, the
Socialist. What wonder then, that it should consider the humiliation of
England, gratifying though it might be in itself, even a boon too dearly
purchased at the price. We think it well that Irishmen should be
constantly reminded of the degree in which they are indebted to their
neighbor. But in doing so, we deem it of importance to guard ourselves
carefully from misconception. Nothing is further from our desires than
to keep an old sore running, simply to gratify an unchristian passion
for revenge. Quite the contrary. At the same time we hold that in laying
bare the hideous malice, the systematic meanness, with which our pious
master has smirched the name of Ireland before the eyes of the world, we
shall be deservedly rebuking an amiable but spiritless class, whose meek
outpourings have become a nuisance. We would advise persons of this
class to bear two things in mind. In the first place, that after the
cession of an Irish Parliament (yielded, of course, only as the
alternative to rebellion), the initiative towards reconciliation must be
made by England, which is in the wrong, not by Ireland, that has
suffered from the wrong. Secondly, that partnership in business does not
necessarily imply either friendship or affection in private. Those who
are most strongly opposed in politics and religion often pull well
together when there is no help for it, and when they see that to do so
is for the promotion of their mutual interests. So may it be with
nations; and so, please God, will it be with Ireland and England, until
that day when the latter is able to come forward and say to us, "I
restore to you your escutcheon, which, trampled and spat upon by me of
yore, I have since by my tears washed whiter than the driven snow."
_Dublin Freeman's Journal._
O'Connell and Parnell--1835-1886.
"History repeats itself. Fifty years ago English parties found
themselves in the presence of difficulties similar to those by which
they are confronted to-day. The general election of 1835 left O'Connell
master of the situation, as the general election of 1885 leaves Mr.
Parnell. Then England returned 212, Ireland 39, and Scotland 13 Tories,
making a total of 364 members who were prepared to support the
government of Sir Robert Peel. On the other side, England returned 99
Whigs, 189 Radicals and Independents; Scotland, 10 Whigs, 30 Radicals
and Independents; Ireland, 22 Whigs, acting mainly with O'Connell, and
44 Repealers, acting directly under him; thus making a total altogether
of 349 anti-Ministerialists. But between the members of the Opposition
so formed there was no cohesion. O'Connell stood aside from Whigs,
Tories and Radicals, awaiting the arrangement of the terms on which his
alliance was to be secured. Of the 219 Radicals and Independents elected
at the polls only 140 could be relied on to support a Whig
administration, and the result was that, so far as England and Scotland
were concerned, the Tories had a working majority of 15. Thus: Tories,
264; Whig-Radical Coalition, 249; Tory majority, 15; Irish in reserve,
66. Here was 'an extraordinary state of parties,' to use the language of
the _Edinburgh Review_; 'an awful situation,' to adopt the phraseology
of the _Times_. 'O'Connell would be real Prime Minister,' roared the
Thunderer of Printing-House Square, if Whigs and Tories did not loyally
unite to put him down. One thing, in the opinion of the _Times_, was
clear--no English party ought to touch 'the Repeal rebel,' 'the
unprincipled ruffian,' 'the demon of malignity and anarchy,' in whose
hands the people of Ireland had been forced to place the destinies of
their wretched country."
The above is from the _Dublin Freeman_. Catholic emancipation was then
the burning question, and O'Connell triumphed. To-day the question is
Legislative Independence for Ireland. Will it be a triumph? The struggle
of desperation will not, we hope, have to answer.
* * * * *
With true orators success is won by the long-continued work which
supplies the hard facts and telling truths for which eloquent words are
but the vehicle. Powder, no doubt, is very useful in war; it makes the
most noise, but it is the bullets and shells that silence the
enemy.--_Rev. William Delaney, S. J._