.jpg)
The Pamphlet Collection of Sir Robert Stout: Volume 42
[introduction]
.jpg)
he pamphlet which this introduces explains itself; and but few words are needed by way of introduction. The Hobart Town riots, on the occasion of Pastor Chiniquy's visit to that city, were a very serious and expensive affair, profoundly agitating the community in the midst of which they occurred, and costing the colony, according to the Hobart Town Mercury, nearly £2,000 to suppress. The serious character of the disturbances may be gathered from the following extract, taken from the Adelaide Observer of July 5th, 1879. It is contained in their Hobart Town correspondent's letter of June 27:—
During the current week Hobart Town—generally the quietest of quiet towns—has been the scene of unparalleled displays of religious fanaticism. Pastor Chiniquy has set the whole of our little world by the ears, and has, by his denunciations of Roman Catholicism, aroused the dormant passions of the adherents of that body to such an extent that serious breaches of the peace have already occurred, while further rioting is looked upon as a certainty. As I write we are "in the thick" of the disturbance. Numbers of Protestants are entering the Town Hall Chambers to be sworn in as special constables, for possible service this evening; the artillery have been ordered to take possession of the Domain Battery, near which place an open-air meeting of Catholics is convened for this evening, and where it is proposed to burn Chiniquy in effigy; the City Council are sitting daily; the Government has been waited upon by deputations; the whole volunteer force is summoned to parade at 7 o'clock (in readiness for eventualities).
The report of these riots, which were quite as serious as those that occurred on the West Coast some years ago in connexion with Father Larkin's inflammatory harangues, was entirely suppressed by the Christchurch newspapers. Of course they may have satisfactory reasons for keeping back important information from their subscribers and readers; but we think the public will agree with us that no sufficient justification can be pleaded for this suppression of news. The Lyttelton Times has pleaded, practically, that it did not think the publication would do any good! That is, that the public of Christchurch, or that portion of the public which support that journal, cannot be trusted to read an important item of news. We are so inflammatory a people that we require the Lyttelton Times to act as "wet blankets" for us. We are mistaken if the public of Christchurch do not tell the Editor of that journal that they are as capable of controlling their tempers, and acting like fair-minded Englishmen, as he himself is!
to defend himself. The Proprietor of the Lyttelton Times is credited with the desire to serve his country in Parliament; we would therefore ask his opinion of the following questions for a political placard:—
- Who suppressed important news because he did not think the people could be trusted with the knowledge?
- Who attacked, in venomous terms, the character of a respectable clergyman for drawing attention to the suppression?
- Who refused to allow the clergyman so attacked to defend himself?
We make a present of these questions to some electioneering committee during the coming election.