doctrine" on certain particulars. And I asked my frie inquire of Father Perrone, whether he would say totidem that "the Catholic doctrine" thus "defined" in the " vos" is infallibly true.

The reply which I have received is as follows:

"I have proposed to Father Perrone your two quest nay, I have put under his eyes your very words. (1) V he not confess totidem verbis that the Unigenitus" an "Auctorem fidei" are infallible decisions?' (2) Woul not say that this Catholic doctrine of the "Mirari vo infallibly true? To both questions he tells me to an AFFIRMATIVE ET ULTRA; and he repeated it strongly twice. adds that he has never had a doubt about it... and he u me to send the letter to-day by the quick post."

My friendly correspondent adds:-" You will see also strongly Father Perrone speaks of the Encyclical and appended Syllabus, in his article in the 'Omaggio Cattol towards the end."

should not be wanting as would at least indicate our hope of it; but at present the expectation only appears to us in the light of an exercise of credulity. Lord Russell, indeed, has written a letter to say that the year 1868 is destined to witness the fall of the Irish Church. It may be so; but certainly at present Lord Russell does not appear to us to exercise that control of public events and political parties which gives promise to the predictions of statesmen. It has taken seven centuries to bring the affairs of Ireland to their present pass; and the policy which may ultimately give peace to that hapless country will hardly be extemporised in a session, least of all in the session of 1868, and under the inspiration of Lord Russell. That session may indeed see certain concessions made to the Catholics of Ireland of considerable value of a character consistent with the general policy of the present Ministry. Much may especially be hoped for and attempted in regard to the question of denominational education. A charter for the Catholic University is, we may say, almost within reach. It is not impossible that the Irish Chief Secretary may propose and carry an enlarged edition of the useful, though not altogether adequate, Landlord and Tenant Bills, which he proposed last session. If Parliament should have any spare time and be in a particularly good humour, it might not be quite vain to attempt the repeal of the Ecclesiastical Titles Act. These are all practical objects, capable of being promoted without the assumption of any hostile party complexion, and which, indeed, it would be far easier for the present Ministry to concede than it would have been for their predecessors. But the question of the Irish Church comes before us at present rather as an English Party cry than as a serious object of Irish policy; and there never was a time since O'Connell's death when the Irish people could so ill afford to be carried away by an English Party cry as at present. Nor is there any Party leader in England, whom it is so demonstrably unsafe for them to trust on this question as John, Earl Russell of Ardsalla. It is now many years since he succeeded in ejecting a Tory Ministry from office on the Irish Church question; but when he succeeded to office he never attempted to carry out the policy of the Appropriation clause. On the contrary, his opinions in office underwent so complete a change that he ultimately became a stanch defender of the Irish Establishment as one of the necessary bulwarks of the Constitution against the encroachments of the Catholic Church. In the year 1853, speaking on the motion of the then hon. member for Mayo, Mr. George Moore, the noble lord said:

I am far from denying that there are many members of this House, and many members of the Roman Catholic persuasion, both in this country and in Ireland, who are attached to the throne and to the liberties of this country; but what I am saying, and that of which I am convinced, is, that if the Roman Catholic clergy had increased power given to them, and if they, as ecclesiastics, were to exercise greater control and greater political influence than they do now, that power would not be exercised in accordance with the general freedom that prevails in this country; and that neither in respect to political circumstances nor upon other subjects would they favour that general freedom of discussion and that activity and energy of the human mind that belong to the spirit of the constitution of this country. I do not think that in that respect they are upon a par with the Presbyterians of Scotland. The Presbyterians of Scotland, the Wesleyans of this country, and the Established Church of this country and of Scotland, all, no doubt, exercise a certain influence over their congregations; but that influence which they thus exercise over their congregations must be compatible with a certain freedom of the mind-must be compatible with a certain spirit of inquiry, which the ministers of these churches do not dare to overstep, and which, if they did overstep, that influence would be destroyed. I am obliged, then, to conclude-most unwillingly to conclude, but most decidedly-that the endowment of the Roman Catholic religion in Ireland in the place of the endowment of the Protestant Church in that country, in connection with the State, is not an object which the Parliament of this country ought to adopt or to sanction. Sir, these opinions of mine may lead to conclusions unpalatable to many who belong to the Roman Catholic Church. They may lead to a persistence in a state of things that I quite admit to be anomalous and unsatisfactory; but I am obliged as a Member of this Parliament to consider-and to consider most seriously in the present state of the world-that which is best adapted to maintain the freedom and permanence of our Institutions. I must look around me at what is passing elsewhere. I must see what is taking place in Belgium. I must see what is taking place in Sardinia and in various countries of Europe. I must regard the influence which, if not exercised, has been attempted to be exercised in the United Kingdom of late years. Seeing these things, I give my decided resistance to the proposal of the hon. gentleman for the abolition of the Established Church in Ireland upon the principles which I have stated, and which appear to me to be conclusive against the motion. [3 Hansard, cxxvii. 945-6.]

Such continued to be the policy of the Cabinets with which he was connected during the life of Lord Palmerston. In 1863 Mr. Cardwell, then Irish Secretary, said on Mr. Bernal Osborne's motion :

-

What the honourable gentleman really means is an abstract resolution of this House again condemning the Irish Church. I believe this House will not surrender the principle of an Established Church. I believe it will

not alienate the property of the Church from the ecclesiastical uses to which it has been devoted.

And in a subsequent session Sir Robert Peel, who had succeeded to the office of Chief Secretary, speaking on a similar motion, declared that the maintenance of the Irish Church Establishment was one of those questions on which the Government were determined to stand or fall. This was the policy of Lord Russell and his colleagues charged with the Irish Administration up to the time of their losing office. One statesman of the Party, indeed, the one who has most thoroughly studied Church questions, and who is at the same time the real and potential Liberal leader, had in 1865 indicated his decided divergence from his colleagues on this subject. No one will charge Mr. Gladstone with inconsistency at all events, should he declare that the time is ripe to deal with the Irish Church Question in 1868. But this is one of the points on which there is room to suspect that there is not exact accord between Mr. Gladstone and Lord Russell. Mr. Gladstone may, perhaps, look forward to the prospect of dealing some day or other with the Irish Church Question; but hardly from his present base of operations. It is a question for a strong Minister with a strong majority, and not a question for the discomfited leader of an incoherent Opposition in the last session of a perishing Parliament.

For these reasons we regard the expectations of its settlement held out for next year as sanguine at best; but, in so far as they are seriously entertained by persons responsible for the actual conduct of Irish public affairs, as dangerously delusive. After so many years of agitation and complaint, it remains to be said, indeed, that Irish Catholic opinion is far less ripe for its settlement than might be expected. There is a pretty general cry easy to evoke at any time of "Away with it! away with it!" But it is not possible for Parliament simply to enact a cry. The Established Church is an enormous public corporation, covering the country as completely as the Poor Law or the Police. It has a large property and a considerable revenue. Is the property to be sold like Italian or Mexican Church property for the benefit of the Commissioners of the National Debt? Is the revenue to simply cease to be levied, and so go into the pockets of the Irish landlords? This is the interpretation which a democratic Parliament, still leavened by a certain share of landlord influence, would probably put upon a mere popular cry for Abolition. But such a solution would evidently be eminently unsatisfactory, for the Irish Church property in the last resort is, at all events, the

property of the Irish people, and especially of the Irish Poor, and ought to be applied, as it was intended, to their peculiar benefit. Is, then, the Catholic Church, as the true Church of the country, to take it all, and to be established as the Church of England and the Church of Scotland are? Or a share of it, on the footing of the chief dissenting sect, leaving the precedence and rank of establishment to the Protestant Church, as is the case in the principal British colonies? Or, if the settlement be preceded by a solemn, self-denying ordinance on the part of the Irish Catholic hierarchy and clergy, are the proceeds of the confiscation to be applied to the redemption of the Poor Rate or the endowment of Education-in the one case lightening the charge upon land, in the other relieving the Imperial Exchequer, for the sum is so large that it could not be applied in either way without enuring to the immense benefit either of the landlords or of the State? Or can a fund be formed for the purchase of absentee properties and the creation of a peasant proprietary? or the settlement of waste lands? or the acquisition and extension of Irish railways? or some combination of several of these plans? Before Parliament seriously proceeds to legislate on the disendowment of the Irish Church, Parliament is entitled to know and will be certain to insist on knowing what the Catholics of Ireland really mean in the matter. And what they actually do mean-it may, without disrespect, be doubted whether they have as yet in any very deliberate way considered.

We are not ourselves sufficiently acquainted with the real sentiments of the Irish Episcopate and Clergy to speak with much confidence or freedom of the scheme so elaborately and so eloquently urged in the pamphlets, four of which have now been published by Mr. Aubrey de Vere. It is a scheme which ought to have gained their distinctly understood sanction, before any Minister could venture to propose it to Parliament. At present, any public declarations of the Irish Episcopate and Clergy which are on record would lead to the conclusion that they wish to remain absolutely independent of the State in point of income and endowment. But this particular plan of settlement, which is capable of being regarded as a restitution rather than an endowment, never has been formally considered, and deserves formal and careful consideration. We believe the time has not come, but is rapidly coming when this plan or some other plan, resting on an equally simple and intelligible principle, must receive their definite sanction. Meantime, the gratitude of the Irish Catholics is deeply due to Mr. de Vere for his thorough and enlightened investigation of the whole subject of their rela