side the churches; without tumult; without violation of charity; with that moderation which entirely befits the clerical order;" and finally, which is especially to be remembered in things of this kind-"full power being left to every one to think for himself in doubtful matters." It should be explained repeatedly and impressed on the flock by a priest's whole demeanour, that those who think differently may be as excellent Catholics as any others; and that such differences constitute no justification for the smallest degree of personal reprehension or disapproval. We are supposing, of course, that those Catholics of higher status make no claim to any one's votes except their own, and attempt no particle of undue influence; because if there be anything of this kind, reprehension and remonstrance is the priest's bounden duty.

We have spoken of politically "organizing" Irish Catholics; and it is very important for our purpose, that our readers should rightly understand what we mean by this expression. We cannot do better as an illustration of this, than refer to the English free-trade "organization" of some twenty years ago. The backbone of that whole movement was a widely-extending and rapidly increasing conviction, that the corn-law gave landlords a most unfair advantage over other portions of the community. Had this conviction not largely existed, Mr. Cobden and his fellow-labourers would have had no position, no support to rest on. Yet on the other hand, a mere unargumentative and inarticulate conviction is incapable of political action and combination. It was the work then of Mr. Cobden and his friends, to "organize" the free-trade movement. In other words it was their work, (1) to formulate and state definitely the doctrine itself for which they contended; (2) to elaborate its argumentative grounds, and place them before the country clearly and persuasively; (3) so to guide and direct their followers' practical action, at parliamentary elections, public meetings, and the like, as might produce the most powerful political result. There was throughout the closest mutual interdependence between leaders and followers. Without the former, the latter would have been powerless in giving effect to their deepest and most rooted couvictions. On the other hand the power of the leaders absolutely depended on the confident persuasion of their followers, that their leaders were pursuing those very ends on which they themselves were bent. Let this persuasion once have given way among the rank-and-file, and Mr. Cobden's power would have crumbled away in his grasp.

Now precisely such as this is the relation between Irish priests and the mass of Irish Catholics, on such questions as those relating to tenant-right. To suppose that on such matters the

to this question, than on all other practical issues put together. The Church teaches a very definite doctrine on the subject; and the Irish Episcopate has put forth in detail an authoritative exposition of that doctrine, in its bearing on the existing circumstances of their country. Excepting only then his direct labours for the sanctification and salvation of souls, the Irish priest has no more primary duty, than that of co-operating here with his bishops. It is his business to set clearly before his flock the vital importance of giving every Catholic youth an education, which shall be exclusively Catholic; to enforce on them the sacred duty of using their whole political power for the attainment of this end; to inspire them with horror at the very notion of allowing undue influence-such as that of their landlord-to interfere ever so slightly with this paramount obligation.

In fact we see nothing objectionable in principle—though it is difficult to imagine circumstances under which such a course would be expedient-if the supreme ecclesiastical authority solemnly pronounced ecclesiastical censures or penalties, on those recreant and disloyal Catholics, who should sacrifice to mere private ends the interests of their God, their Faith, and their country. But on the other hand it is utterly intolerable, that individual priests on their own authority should attempt anything of this kind; and any bishop would fail signally of his duty, who, on hearing credibly of such an attempt, should not peremptorily put it down.

So much on denominational education; but the same remark applies to all those other questions, on which the Catholic Church has a definite doctrine. Suppose e.g. Ireland were threatened with a divorce bill, such as now afflicts England: a sacerdotal crusade would be of obligation, similar to that which now proceeds for denominational education. The Fenians again (to take quite a different instance) make it their fundamental principle, that peoples have an inalienable right of rising against their rulers, whenever they may choose to do so. This is directly contrary to the Church's teaching; and no priest, whose flock is in danger of imbibing such poison, would truly preach the Gospel, unless he denounced and exposed so antichristian an error.

Now undoubtedly this particular portion of a priest's professional duties-the portion which brings him across the field of politics has special dangers of its own; and he may possibly make serious mistakes in his way of performing it. But then if this were accounted an excuse for neglecting the duty itself, all morality would be subverted. Moreover it so happens, that the Irish bishops have synodically laid down certain singularly well-balanced and complete rules on the subject,

which were brought before Judge Keogh by the Bishop of Clonfert, and which will be found in the Evidence (pp. 575, 6). We cannot do better than here translate them.

But lest contentions, strifes, or other scandals should arise from the imprudence of any priest, we strictly forbid that any parish priest, or other priest, presume to declare any one by name as excommunicate, unless he have first obtained permission in writing from his bishop to make such declaration.

We forbid also that any priest, for any reason whatever, inveigh by name against any one from the altar, or publicly denounce any one.

We recall to the memory of all priests of this country the obligation, whereby they are bound, of explaining on feast days to the faithful people the mysteries of the Faith, the Sacraments, the commandments of God, and other things appertaining to religion. And since there is peril lest these be neglected if different [aliena] and profane matters be treated of in the churches, we strictly forbid that either amidst the solemnities of the Mass (which would plainly be unbecoming) or even in the church at all, things merely secular should be treated of,—such as political elections, or other matters of the same kind-which may easily promote dissensions between pastor and flock, and cause great excitement of spirit. Which command however is not so to be interpreted, as though priests were not to speak concerning the non-reception of bribes, the avoiding of perjury, the rights of the Church, charity and care towards the poor. But if any priest, secular or regular, treat on matters of the former kind,* or if (in contempt of the Thurles Synod) any one be inveighed against by name in the churches, let such a priest be visited with the punishment of suspension, or some other, at the discretion of his Ordinary. We exhort moreover, that priests do not carry on contentions and strifes with each other on political matters at public meetings, and still less in the public journals; lest sacerdotal dignity receive some detriment, lest charity be violated which is the Church's strength, and lest priests be mixed up with others in quarrels and contentions. But in enacting this, we consider nevertheless that the good of religion and the liberty of the Church require that, whenever there is question of electing guardians of the poor and members of Parliament,-from whose mode of action the faith and security of the Catholic poor and the Church's rights and liberty can suffer detriment-priests ought to be solicitous that these offices be conferred on worthy men, and on men not inimical to the Catholic religion. Nevertheless we consider that all such matters should be treated of outside the churches, without tumult, without violation of charity, with the due subjection of each priest to his own bishop (lest mutual dissensions should arise among the clergy), and with that moderation which entirely befits the clerical order: every one being permitted to think freely for himself on things doubtful.

"Hujusmodi rebus."-The construction here requires a little attention. The clause immediately preceding (which we have printed as a separate sentence) is treated as parenthetical; and this "hujusmodi" refers back to the earlier part of the sentence, in which the same word occurs.

Suppose the whole body of frieze-coated Catholics in some constituency are firmly convinced, that a certain given measure (say of tenant-right) is most important for their country's religious and temporal well-being; while there is every hope that by uniting they can in due time carry it. Suppose at the same time a certain number of them, through motives of selfinterest, keep themselves aloof from the common movement, or even actually oppose it. It follows from the first principles of religion and morality, that these persons deserve severe moral reprobation. This is no "merely political," it is a "sacred doctrine. The practical application of this doctrine no doubt, as we have already said,-the protesting against individual landlords by name, the exposure of any specially base influences which may be attempted, the reprehension of individuals who have either put forth such influences or on the other hand have yielded to them all this should take place "outside the churches; without tumult; without violation of charity; with that moderation which entirely befits the clerical order." But none the less for this, the whole of this vigorous action is included within the scope of a parish priest's duties; though his chapel is not the fit scene for its performance.

But more than this may be said. If landlords were permitted without vehement protest to exercise undue influence in "purely political" questions,-it would be impossible to make a successful stand against them, when they put forth such influence on "sacred" questions also; when they put pressure on their tenants, even in such matters as denominational education or some possible divorce bill. Landlord pressure in Ireland is the one chief obstacle, which prevents Irish Catholics from having their due and proportional weight in the political scale. This pressure moreover is now far more open to successful assault, than at any previous time: because (1) Mr. Gladstone's noble land measure has so greatly impeded capricious evictions; and because (2) secret voting is now the law of the land. The priesthood would be false to themselves and to the Church, if they did not use the opportunity which now presents itself, of making a systematic effort radically to extirpate this deadly upas-tree, which has so long poisoned Catholic political action. And we are by no means sure, that this Galway Judgment may not be the best thing which could possibly have happened; because of the indignation thereby excited against that inveterate tyranny and oppression, which the Judge has not merely absolved but rather canonized. Upwards of £14,000 have been collected for the payment of Captain Nolan's expenses: and considering that comparatively few of the subscribers can belong to the wealthier class, this

sum represents a really vast amount of national protest and indignation.

Indeed, if Judge Keogh's views were to prevail,-if the tenant were expected as a matter of course to vote for his landlord's candidate under pain of being treated as an ungrateful rebel,-it would be not only a simpler, but in every respect a preferable process, to disfranchise altogether the tenants themselves, and give each landlord as many votes as he has farms on his estate. In this way those political results would be obtained, which the Judge accounts so desirable; while they would be secured, without the tenants' demoralization and (often) mental anguish being made their necessary means. Moreover, such a course would be far more straightforward; because there would then be no attempt to delude Englishmen into the notion, that an Irish tenant is a free voter. Such is the view expressed by the Archbishop of Tuam, in his admirable letter of July 26th, 1871.

GENTLEMEN,-On the meeting, to be held in Athonry to-morrow, the attention of Ireland will be anxiously fixed; since on its proceedings will in a great measure depend, whether the electors at the coming Galway election will in reality be free and independent voters, as the Constitution means, or only so in name, holding the franchise in exclusive trust for their enemies, and ready to relapse into a state of servitude worse than that of the West Indian slave, from which it cost the people so many years of heroic struggle, to emancipate themselves and the entire tenant class of Ireland.

True, the negro was not amused or insulted with the show of freedom which he was well aware he did not enjoy; whilst the Irish slave, wearing his mask of freedom, was worried to give his vote, for the purpose of prolonging his servitude and riveting more stringently his chains. I hope, then, that those who meet to-morrow in Athonry will enter fully into the great issue in their hands, and that by the fixed and uncompromising firmness of their resolve to assert their rights, as well as by the dignified inoffensiveness of their tone, they will persuade the old enemies of the rights and prosperity of the people, to retire in time and good humour from a contest, in which they can gain nothing by persisting but humiliation and discomfiture. (Evidence, p. 158.)

We now come to "purely political" questions, in the sense we have given to that term; and we will take, as our obvious illustration, some given measure of tenant-right. Now plainly, just as Mr. Cobden was satisfied that corn-law repcal-just as Lord Grey was satisfied that West Indian slavery abolition-was a highly beneficial course;-just in the same way some Irish priest may be thoroughly satisfied, that this tenant-right measure would be highly beneficial. Certainly its beneficialness is not a necessary and indubitable consequence of Catholic dogma, any more than in the parallel cases of Mr. Cobden and Lord Grey; but he may be nevertheless as thoroughly satisfied of the VOL. XIX.-NO. XXXVIII. [New Series.]

T