most Catholic nation in Europe by placing all local power in the hands of that small minority, who detest and despise the national religion. What would he himself say, if a similar plan had been gravely proposed by an Austrian, some twenty years ago, for the government of Italy? or if it were now gravely proposed by some Russian, for the government of Poland? Were it really true (in fact there cannot be a greater mistake) that Irish Catholicity is essentially inimical to English interests, it would obviously follow, that England cannot, without monstrous injustice, retain Catholic Ireland in subjection.

Before entering on more generous and worthy reasons for the 'repudiation of Mr. Greg's amazing proposal, let us look at its necessary consequences; though in this it is difficult to avoid a certain appearance of unreality, because the proposal itself is so extravagantly unpractical. We should have had difficulty indeed in thinking that he had fully weighed his words before publication: but then he is a singularly grave and unimpassioned writer; and there are several others, who do not indeed speak quite so openly, but who are in the habit nevertheless of using language concerning Irish Catholics, which (so far as we see), has no consistent and comprehensible meaning short of Mr. Greg's. It will really therefore be serviceable to contemplate in the concrete this proposed legislation, however unreal the whole discussion may appear. And that we may bring home to English apprehension what Mr. Greg's plan really involves, let us make a very intelligible (however violently improbable) supposition. France becomes an intensely Catholic country, is governed by a zealous Catholic Bourbon, and is by far the most powerful nation in the civilized world. She subjects England to her dominion, and places all local power in the hand of English Catholics: England in fact being governed, supremely by a French legislature sitting at Paris or Versailles, and subordinately by a Parliament of English Catholics guarded by French bayonets in London. This is a state of things certainly not more than parallel to the Irish government proposed by Mr. Greg. If our readers will imagine the ineffable bitterness and indignation which would possess the English mind on such an hypothesis,-let them only further suppose the Irish mind similarly inflamed, and estimate the inevitable result.

The first hint of such a measure would so set Irishmen on fire, that its actual passing would be the signal of spontaneous and universal insurrection. The English are prepared for this, and have military forces at hand which thoroughly crush it. It

*Mr. Greg admits that, under perfectly free voting, 70 out of the 100 Irish members would be zealous Catholics, devoted to the Holy See.

is succeeded as a matter of course by assassinations extending over the whole length and breadth of the country. In the parallel case, we are convinced that Englishmen would account the assassination of Frenchmen a positive merit, as a legitimate act of war. The Irish, being Catholics, would be steadily taught, that even under their existing circumstances assassination is a mortal sin. But then there never has been and never will be a religious communion, which does not contain very many members, who are by no means habitual observers of God's Law; and a large proportion of these would be engaged in assassination. But now further, it will be wholly impossible for the English to detect the assassins. Even those very numerous Catholic Irishmen, who would rather die than commit mortal sin, are most certainly not bound, under pain of mortal sin or of any sin, to co-operate actively with the law of an alien enemy; whether or no it be thought that they are bound to abstain from positive resistance. Will the English in desperation call the priests to their assistance? Why in the first place, if there is one thing more earnestly denounced than another by such writers as Mr. Greg, it is governing Ireland by help of the priests; but in the second place, the priests would not be willing to come to the rescue; while in the third place (if they were willing) they could do nothing. The English then must either acquiesce in the numerous and repeated assassinations, or govern the country by military law, shooting men on mere suspicion. If English opinion before very long interferes and compels the Legislature to retract its steps,-then all the evils now existing (for which a remedy has been sought in the disfranchisement of Catholics) would return, not merely in full force but with greatly increased intensity. On the other hand, if Englishmen chose the continuance of this pandemonium and the constant increase of its horrors, the indignation of other countries would in due time be aroused, and in one way or another Ireland would be rescued from her oppressor's grasp. But the loss of Ireland (as Englishmen are fond of insisting to defend themselves for denying autonomy to the Irish) would be a death-blow to the British Empire.

It will be objected perhaps to this picture, that Catholic disfranchisement did exist in Ireland for a whole century, and was only brought to an end at the good pleasure of the English. But the reply is obvious, or rather the objection strengthens our argument. This disfranchisement was able to continue, because Catholic Ireland was kept firmly down by the appalling penal code; and it would be as impossible in the present day that England should re-enact the penal code, as that a Catholic king should inflict capital punishment for heresy.

No. The disfranchisement of all Irish Catholic voters is a measure, which cannot be so much as thought of by any sober person, who will take pains to estimate its consequences. And since, as Mr. Greg very truly observes, an Irish Catholic elector (if he votes sincerely and honestly) will always be to a very large extent under the influence of his priests, some different way must be excogitated, for dealing with this troublesome part of the community.

It has often been said, that the true solution of the Irish difficulty would be to govern Ireland according to Irish ideas. The more common answer to this is, that such an expression has no definite meaning. It is our own conviction however, not only that the phrase has a very definite meaning, but that that meaning is a sound and important one; and in our number for last April (pp. 439-40) we were led to say a few words on the subject. On the present occasion however we shall content ourselves, with a far more rudimental and indubitable statement. We say this then. Englishmen, who undertake to govern a nation widely different from their own in religion, in race, in national character,-incur a grave guilt before God and man, if they do not take special pains rightly to understand the circumstances and needs of that nation.

Considered from this point of view, the debate on Mr. Butt's proposed censure of Judge Keogh ranks fairly among the most disgraceful scenes which ever degraded the British Legislature. Here was a judgment, which, alike from its matter and its manner, had convulsed Catholic Ireland to the very centre. The English rulers of the conquered race assembled, in counsel with a small array of Irish members, to discuss it. Of what character was the discussion? Why the conservative and the liberal opponents of Mr. Butt's motion vied with each other, in their ignorance of the most obvious and easily-known Irish phenomena. The opinion sincerely held and assumed by them throughout was, that the Catholic electors of Galway, in their genuine unbiassed judgment, preferred the son of Lord Clancarty to the author of the Portacarron award; and that they were only prevented, by the organization of a ruthless and

"Sincerely." We cannot say "honestly." See the introductory remarks of our article.

+ We are far from intending any implication personally disrespectful to the late Lord Clancarty, of whom we know absolutely nothing. But it was universally believed, that he was in act a thorough-going anti-Catholic; that he refused ground e.g. for a Catholic chapel, and opposed the admission of nuns into a workhouse. It was also universally believed, that in so acting he did but conform to the hereditary habits of his family. Is it probable that his son was an acceptable candidate to Catholics who thus believed?

overbearing sacerdotal conspiracy, from sending to Parliament the landlords' nominee, the son of their hereditary foe. We do not mean, that those who opposed Mr. Butt formulized this opinion and looked it in the face; because then it would have been seen as too extravagantly absurd to be credited. But we do say, that their argument alike and their invective were utterly unmeaning, unless this opinion were assumed as true. Who can be surprised that the Irish are disaffected, when we see that such a notion as this is sanctioned by an enormous majority of those, to whose tender mercies the political welfare of Ireland is intrusted ?* If all other records of English misgovernment were swept away, the mere report of that debate would go far to justify the odiousness among Irishmen of English rule; because of the contemptuous indifference towards Ireland, which is manifested by such scandalous ignorance.

We say that contemptuous indifference towards Ireland was the necessary condition, the "sine quâ non," for such ignorance as was displayed in the debate. But let us next inquire how such ignorance was positively caused; for this also is a consideration of much importance. The positive cause was this: that the ordinary Protestant Englishman lashes himself into blind fury at the very sound of the word "priest," like a bull at the sight of a red rag. And we say that a very long step indeed would be taken towards solving the Irish difficulty, if English Protestants of influence would but study the Irish national religion, instead of persistently shutting their eyes to its true character under the influence of unreasoning and violent prejudice. We would express our full meaning as follows:

The division into "conservatives" and "liberals" is a most unsatisfactory classification of British politicians. By the term "liberals" are meant (we suppose) those, who on the whole support Mr. Gladstone's government; and these certainly differ from each other very far more profoundly, than many of them differ from Mr. Gladstone's opponents. The truly significant division of public men-that which really fixes attention on the most vital difference between them would be into

* This dense English ignorance of the most notorious Irish facts is by no means confined to legislators. "It is seldom," says Prof. Beesly (Fortnightly Review for July) "that any utterance of a public man is received with such unanimous and hearty approval, as has greeted the Judgment of Mr. Justice Keogh in England. Liberals and conservatives are for once of one mind. The language in which it was couched, though such as would have been generally pronounced coarse and outrageous if it had been uttered in Trafalgar Square or on Clerkenwell Green, has been decidedly enjoyed." The "theory" of its admirers, adds the Professor, "does indeed in one sense offer matter for serious reflection; for it throws some additional light on the capacity of the English people for governing Ireland.”

supporters and opponents of that movement, which Catholic writers call the Revolution. The purpose of that movement, we need hardly say, is to remove political institutions entirely from off that religious basis, on which they still partially rest. In Great Britain the Revolution has as yet made far less way than on the continent of Europe, while in Ireland it is (one may say) utterly unknown. And though for our own part we cannot be sanguine on the remote future of the United Kingdom under its present democratic constitution,-at all events, if opponents of the Revolution would heartily combine with each other, that movement might be kept at bay for an indefinite period. Here it is that we have to lament that deplorable English ignorance and misapprehension of Irish Catholicity, on which we have been descanting. No more effective opponents of the Revolution can be found, than the Catholic priesthood; and yet piously-intentioned Protestants,-who dread above all other things the separation of politics from religion,-dread, even above that, any exercise of sacerdotal influence. The very same men, who in the last Session assailed Mr. Gladstone for not giving Scotch Presbyterianism more exclusive privileges, would have voted (it was understood) to a man for Mr. Fawcett's motion in favour of Irish anti-denominationalism. And why was this? Because they practically regard "Popery" as worse than no religion at all. Indeed Professor Huxley (who is generally in practical matters a clear-sighted longheaded man) sets at an incredibly high point the anti-Catholic prejudices of good English Protestants. He does not conceal the character of his own (ir) religious creed; for we were able in our last number (p. 12) to give from his writings a full account of it. Here are eight of its fundamental articles:

I. Physical science is the only fountain at which spiritual thirst can be quenched.

II. Sadness is of the essence of religion.

III. The First Cause is inexorable and pitiless.

IV. He looks with favour on the learned Dives, not on the poor and ignorant Lazarus.

V. Physical welfare and happiness are the summum bonum.

VI. Security, wealth, culture, and sympathy are the only rational objects of pursuit.

VII. All aspirations or efforts after divine things-the love of God or beatitude in a future life-are simple waste of time if not worse, and fit only for lunatics.

VIII. Knowledge of all such subjects is impossible to us.

Yet holding even such views as these, the Professor hopes to prevail on the English public to follow him in an anti-Catholic