from the date of the landlord meeting at Loughrea, an incomparably more important issue was raised most urgently: for the very upshot of that meeting was combined resistance to all priestly political action, to all priestly intervention between landlord and tenant. From that moment then at all events, opposition to Trench was no "purely political" but a "sacred" duty. But thirdly, from the very first it was manifest to those of keener observation, that in truth the real point at issue was undue landlord influence. It is simply preposterous to suppose, that Captain Trench's own supporters can have really believed a son of Lord Clancarty to be an acceptable candidate as regarded the great body of electors; and they must necessarily have rested their whole hope of success on that most demoralizing of Irish habits, landlord pressure. Captain Nolan is asked (p. 736, q. 25,213) before the Loughrea meeting, " did you think the landlords were going against you?" And he replies, "Yes, I was quite sure of it at the assizes. . . that the active stirring men of the county, who are a good deal about and talk and settle things amongst themselves, were against me." The Bishop of Clonfert on the other hand colours much more vividly the change which came over things after the Loughrea meeting.

When the general assembly at Loughrea endorsed the language attributed to Sir T. Burke, no doubt the matter assumed a new aspect altogether: because then it was considered-as I did and do still consider it-a most religious question then; namely a question whether the priests shall have anything to say to their people or not. The question then was not priests or landlords, but priests or no priests. I consider it an eminently religious question (p. 481, q. 16,615).

However there is really no necessity whatever, in order to our purpose, for considering the particular circumstances of this last Galway election. The important point is not whether this or that particular priest or body of priests may have made a mistake on one particular occasion; but only what is that general action of the Irish Church in the political field, which is considered by her supreme authorities to be in conformity with the doctrines, discipline, and spirit of the Church Catholic. In the preceding pages we have set forth this, however imperfectly, to the best of our knowledge and power; and we fearlessly challenge the inquiry, whether, in regard to this general action, there is the smallest excuse for such a charge, as that priestly influence is made the means for advancing ambitious or otherwise worldly ends. On the contrary, its direct tendency is elevation of the people in the religious, moral, and social scale; while it is the direct tendency of landlord pressure, that those on whom

it is exercised decline in self-respect, in public spirit, and in religious principle.*

We are next to consider-which will occupy however far shorter space-the legal and constitutional bearings of this matter. Is there any pretext for saying, that such sacerdotal interference in elections as we have been defending, comes under the legal category of undue influence and intimidation? Of course if a priest should threaten an elector with any temporal infliction (popular persecution or the like) as likely to follow from his vote-this would be condemned by the law; but then it would also be condemned by the Church. Again, so far as anything which a priest may say, by exciting tumult and disturbance, places physical obstacles in the way of electors securely exercising their franchise, such language (if agency were proved) would void an election; but it would also expose the said priest to ecclesiastical disapproval. Then further, much might be said by a lawyer for the opinion, that any infliction or menace of ecclesiastical censures on those who vote in one particular way, would rank legally under the head of undue influence and this is one reason indeed, out of several which might be given, why one can hardly imagine it expedient under any circumstances, that the supreme ecclesiastical authority should direct such menace or infliction. On the other hand, we must be allowed to say that never was there a shallower dictum, than that quoted with approval by Judge Keogh from Judge Fitzgerald (Judgment, p. 6).

In the proper exercise of influence upon the electors, the priest may counsel, advise, recommend, entreat, and point out the true line of moral duty, and explain why one candidate should be preferred to another, and throw the whole weight of his character into the scale. But he may not appeal to the fears or terrors, or superstition of those he addresses. He must not hold out hopes of reward here or hereafter, and he must not use threats of temporal injury, or of disadvantage, or of punishment hereafter. He must not, for instance, threaten to excommunicate or withhold the sacraments, or to expose the party to any other religious disability, or denounce the voting for any particular candidate as a sin, or an offence involving punishment here or hereafter. If he does so with a view to influence a voter or to affect an election, the law considers him guilty of undue influence.

Now, we have nothing to say against this, as regards "threats of temporal injury"; nor shall we here dispute it, as regards

*According to Mr. Mitchell Henry, Judge Keogh, when himself a candidate, described the Irish landlords as "the most heartless, the most thriftless, the most indefensible landocracy on the face of the earth." He then spoke as violently and unreasonably in one direction, as he now speaks in the other.

"threatening to excommunicate or to withhold the sacraments." But how as to threats of punishment in another world? No Catholic voter can believe that he will be punished in another world, except for conduct which he believes to be a violation of duty in this world; and vice versâ. It is unspeakably absurd therefore to draw a distinction, between the priest's representing an act as morally wrong, and his representing it as obnoxious to future punishment. Our excellent contemporary "the Tablet" quotes (Aug. 3) two contemporary writers, in criticism of Judge Fitzgerald's curious dictum :

...

A correspondent of the "Pall-Mall Gazette," signing himself "Leguleius' puts the distinction laid down by Judge Fitzgerald thus. "A priest says to an elector it is your moral duty to vote for my candidate.' The priest, says Judge Fitzgerald, is within the proper exercise of his influence. But,' answers the elector, if I disregard my moral duty, what then?' 'Then,' says the priest, 'you will suffer for it hereafter.' If the priest says this, the law, according to the same Judge, considers him guilty of undue influence." "Can anything," asks the writer, "be more childish than such a distinction?" Supposing that both parties in the conversation are believers, the statement about a man's moral duty implies that he will suffer for the breach of it. . . . . Even the "Standard" admits that we "certainly cannot punish a man for saying 'if you vote for A you will be doing the Church so cruel a wrong, that God will certainly damn you;' any more than for saying, if you vote for B, you will help to upset the rights of property, and your land will be taken from you by socialist legislation."" But the "Standard" goes on to say, 66 we can punish him for saying to the voter if you vote for A, I will send you to hell,'"

which last, as the "Standard" supposes, priests really intend, and are understood, to say. Nothing but the truly disgraceful ignorance of Catholic doctrine which prevails among English Protestants, could make us suppose it possible, that this suggestion of the "Standard's" is other than a deliberate and wilful falsehood. But none the less, we avail ourselves of its distinct testimony, as to the absolute legality of what priests really do.

Let us look at facts as they are. Take, in the first place, those questions which we have called "sacred." An elector e.g. is induced by his priest to vote for that candidate, who alone will heartily support denominational education. Why there is no conviction more sincerely and profoundly entertained by any human being, than this elector's conviction, that what the priests of his Church teach him on the subject of denominational education is certainly true.* Or consider such

For our own part we should of course add, "no conviction more reasonably entertained"; but in the text we are addressing non-Catholics.

"purely political" questions as those which concern tenantright. To resume our former illustration - it would be as absurd to say that Irish priests (while acting in the manner we have above upholden) are exercising undue influence in the matter, as it would have been twenty years ago to say that Mr. Cobden and his friends exercised undue influence against the corn laws. In real truth, there is no one class throughout the United Kingdom who labour with such heartiness and simplicity of intention as do Irish priests, in order that electors may vote conformably to their genuine and honest convictions. At the same time, it is a consoling thought, that this whole matter of voting has been so simplified by the Act of last Session. To our mind, the Ballot Bill was not only expedient, but rather imperatively called for. It has always seemed to us extreme tyranny, that a number of men should (wisely or unwisely) be intrusted with the franchise, and yet receive no security in its free and independent exercise.

As regards, indeed, the last Galway election,-there have not been wanting able writers in England, even among those most bitterly opposed to what they call sacerdotalism, who heartily admit the very certain and obvious truth, that, without using any influence which the law accounts undue, Captain Nolan would have triumphantly carried the day. Accordingly, a wellknown anti-christian (but Theistic) writer, Mr. Greg-in a letter addressed, with his initials, to the "Pall-Mall Gazette" of July 17th-suggests, almost in so many words, the disfranchisement of all Catholic voters throughout the Empire, or at all events throughout Ireland. Our statement will appear incredible; and we print therefore in full the concluding portion of his letter, italicising one sentence.

[The law] cannot righteously control or punish [the priest], nor (what is more to the present purpose) can any fair reasoner righteously blame him, for doing what in his eyes and according to his creed is simply his duty. He has a perfect right to say to a member of his congregation, "You will be damned if you vote for the enemy of the Church," provided he really thinks so and can find electors ignorant enough to believe him. You can scarcely inflict penalties upon him, for saying what he thinks, and for being surrounded by men who believe what he says.

Yet neither, it would seem, can the State acquiesce in the results of this its incapacity, nor sit down tamely under this conclusion. To do so- the Irish peasant and the Irish priests being alike blind believers in the power of the clergy to bind and loose in the future world, i. e. to save and to damn* -would practically give to the Pope, and his vicegerent Cardinal Cullen, the

* It cannot be necessary for us to point out in detail the gross misconception of Catholic doctrine here implied.-ED. D. R.

unchecked power of returning seventy devoted and fettered members to the English House of Commons; a sufficient number, that is, to decide nearly every division, and therefore the entire direction of our policy. What does this mean in its extreme and naked, but still quite possible, practical completeness? Merely that we should admit into the heart of our legislative and administrative system an ever-present casting vote, always, and by the very conditions of its existence, given at the dictate not only of an alien but of a necessarily hostile potentate, determined by no considerations of the interests of Great Britain, but solely by a consideration for the interests of Rome. If those seventy members were returned by agents of the Emperor of Germany or the Sovereign of France, we should realize the position. Why do we shrink from realizing it now?

Wherein, then, does the spiritual or mental influence exercised by the Irish priest differ radically from all the other forms of undue pressure we have sketched, and why is it so much more obnoxious? Simply, it would seem, first, in that it is so much more powerful and irresistible, the Irish Catholic being such an out-and-out believer; and secondly, that it alone is wielded, not by one or other of the many forms of British opinion, but by a foreign power, whose only care about Britain is to embarrass and coerce her.

There is obviously only one logical way out of the difficulty, and this no one dares to look in the face. We shall see what the courts of law do with the hierarchy under Judge Keogh's judgment. But this will scarcely decide the matter. The priesthood have done their work brutally and clumsily this time. As long as Catholics have votes, and are sincere believers in their Church, and ignorant and mentally dependent, and more religious than secularly patriotic, so long will the priesthood, in the exercise of their legitimate functions and their fancied duty, determine Irish elections.

They will be more wary and skilful on the next occasion.

This view, extreme though it be, is at last but a partial application of Professor Huxley's doctrine, that "it is not liberal to tolerate anything which," like the Catholic doctrinal system, "stands against the interests of mankind."* We will not here however deal with what the Professor holds in the abstract, but with what Mr. Greg advocates in the concrete.

And this certainly illustrates what we must call the preternatural infatuation, which not unfrequently seizes the ablest unbeliever, when he contemplates that divine edifice the Christian Church. Let it be observed, that what Mr. Greg gravely proposes, is not the going back to that state of things which immediately preceded the Act of 1829, but to the condition of a much earlier period. He would not merely expel Irish Catholic members, but would disfranchise all Irish Catholic electors. If he had his way, Englishmen should govern the

* Passages will be found of this bearing quoted from Professor Huxley, in our number for last April, pp. 437-8; and in our last number, p. 17.