before such improvement should be commenced, and if either party objected, each of them should choose an arbitrator. If these did not agree where the amount to be expended did not exceed £100, the matter should be referred to the Chairman of the Quarter Sessions, who would choose an umpire, by whom the matter would be decided without appeal. The party bringing the appeal, if unsuccessful, should always be obliged to pay the costs; if both parties appealed, the Chairman should have power to grant or refuse costs. When the amount to be expended at any one time exceeded £100, the appeal should be made in the same way to any of the superior courts. If the improvements were made by the landlord, at the conclusion of the work, he should hand a detailed account of the money so expended to the tenant, and vice versá; and in case either party thought the amount excessive, they should first have recourse to arbitration, and if that failed, they would be allowed to appeal to the Chairman of the Quarter Sessions, or to one of the superior courts, in the manner already specified. The security afforded to the tillage farmer would render him perfectly free to improve his farm without any risk of being turned out or of having his improvements confiscated by the landlord. When the improvements had been made by the landlord, the tenant should have liberty to pay him the money so expended, but if he did not do so, the landlord should be at liberty to charge the amount at the rate of 5 per cent., and to add it to the rent. But if the tenant made the improvements, or if he wished to pay for those made by the landlord, he should be entitled to borrow the money from the Board of Works, on the same terms on which it is now granted for drainage. Of course, if the landlord evicted the tenant, he should pay for these improvements, in addition to the sums due on account of tenant-right, and of unexhausted manuring. We should allow the grazier to make permanent improvements on the same terms; nor, although we would not give him fixity of tenure, would this privilege be nugatory, because it must be remembered that we require a two-years' notice to quit for every tenant holding from year to year. This substantially secures all such tenants three years to begin with. In addition to this, we would inflict on the tyrannical landlord, in the case of the grazier, the same penalty of two years' rent, which we said should be exacted from him in case of the wanton eviction of the tillage farmer. Moreover, it should be looked upon as prima facie evidence that the eviction was without cause, if the notice to quit had been given after the grazier had commenced to till his lands, or had given notice of improvements. The same should hold.

concerning the raising of the rents, of which two years' notice should be given to the grazier. In case such notice were given to prevent cultivation or improvements, the grazier should have the option of demanding two years' rent, and giving up his holding, or of accepting the increased rent; and the serving of such notice to quit after the grazier had commenced to till his farm or to make improvements, should be prima facie evidence that it was without cause. The serving of notice to quit on a tenant not in arrears of rent, no legal proceedings having been taken in consequence of such notice, should be regarded as conclusive evidence that such notice was given to prevent the tenant from tilling or improving his land; and in case he did actually till one-third of any farm, or make any considerable improvements, he should, in case of eviction or of the raising of his rent, be entitled to two years' rent, unless in the latter case he preferred to continue at the increased rent.

Thus, without instituting commissions or arbitration courts, or handing over the fee of the land to the tenants, or doing any injury to the landlord, or asking the taxpayer for anything, we think it would be possible satisfactorily to settle the relations between landlord and tenant in a way that would certainly be beneficial, and which we think should be satisfactory to both.

But we have already stated, and we repeat that the most satisfactory settlement of the land question would not restore peace and contentment to Ireland. The next thing we would require would be to give employment to the day labourers, numbers of whom, except in harvest time, are still without employment. The surplus of the money derived from the disendowment of the Irish Church could be devoted to no purpose at once so useful and so national as that of the arterial drainage and the reclaiming of the waste lands of Ireland. The landlords should be obliged to pay for the former to the amount of the improvement it would afford to their respective estates. The owners of waste lands, which they shall not, within six months from the passing of the Land Act, have commenced to reclaim, should be obliged to sell them to the State.

The lands reclaimed by the State should be divided into farms of not less than twenty, and not more than fifty, Irish acres, and sold to tenants who should be bound to reside on their farms. They should be obliged to pay one-third of the purchase-money, the remainder to be secured on the farm. The Church lands, so far as they are unlet, should be disposed of in the same manner. The London Companies should be obliged to sell their lands to Government, which should dis

pose of them to resident farmers in the way already specified. The great want of Ireland is land for all who want it. It is said, no more than God has given can be made. We think the means we have pointed out will create seven millions of acres; three of which would be gained from the bogs and wastes, and four from the grass land.

This new voluntary arrangement regarding the land would offer a fair opportunity to all those who, having acquired money by honest industry, wish to obtain a farin in the country on which they may end their days in rural tranquillity. It would revive the trade of the shopkeepers of the decayed country towns, by creating a large rural population of tenant farmers and labourers, who would resort to the nearest shopkeepers. It would give employment to the small tradesmen; for, whilst the graziers and large farmers go to the metropolis of the kingdom or of the province for their necessaries, the small farmers and labourers would be content to procure them at the nearest country town; and for these reasons we think the legislation we propose would benefit all classes of the community.

ART. VIII.-INFALLIBILITY AND THE COUNCIL. The Ecumenical Council and the Infallibility of the Roman Pontiff. By HENRY EDWARD, Archbishop of Westminster. London: Longmans. The Pope and the Council. By JANUS. Authorized translation from the German. London: Rivingtons.

Du Concile Général et de la Paix religieuse. Par Mgr. MARET, Évêque de

Sura. Paris: Plon.

Le Correspondant, 10 Octobre, 1869. Paris: Douniol.

Observations sur la Controverse soulevée relativement à la Définition de l'Infaillibilité. Par Mgr. DUPANLOUP, Évêque d'Orléans.

IN

N our article on "the coming Council," in October, 1868, we spoke with great reserve (p. 520) on the question, whether the doctrine of infallibility were likely to come into discussion. The "Eterni Patris" made no reference to that doctrine, nor were we aware of any other ground for anticipating any conciliar consideration of the subject. Since that article was written however, one indication has rapidly succeeded another; and now, after the Pastorals of Mgr. Dechamps and our own Archbishop, it seems hardly possible to doubt that the question will be mooted at Rome.

On the other hand, that the enormous majority of Catholic bishops consider infallibility to be vested in the Holy See, is doubted by no man. As Archbishop Manning observes (p. 27), those even among Catholic laymen who disbelieve that doctrine are a mere "handful of Catholics." The discussion at Rome therefore will mainly turn on the issue, whether the present moment is opportune for a definition. Archbishop Manning has expressed most forcibly (pp. 38-54) the reasons which weigh with many, so far as their own individual judgment is concerned, as strongly enforcing this opportuneness. At the same time he expresses (p. 26) their unanimous feeling as regards the deference due on this head to the Vatican Council.

If the Council should decide contrary to their previous judgment, they would rejoice to be corrected by its unerring guidance; if it should refrain from pronouncing on matters on which they previously believed a decision to be opportune or even necessary, they would with their whole heart submit their judgment, and believe that such a decision would be not only not necessary, but not even opportune. In this sense of perfect submission, springing from faith in the perpetual and infallible assistance of the Holy Spirit, all Catholics will await the final result of the first Council of the Vatican (p. 26).

Our present purpose is to lay stress on one particular reason adduced by Archbishop Manning, as leading him to consider that a definition of Pontifical infallibility would be most opportune.

It cannot be said, that the denial of the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff is obscure, unobtrusive, and latent. It is patent, notorious, importunate, and organized. It exists, not indeed in power, as once it did in France; but it exists still. Its roots are yet in the soil and alive. It exists in a handful of active and hostile minds in England and in Germany, and it has been taken up by Protestants in both countries as a weapon of controversy or of contumely against the Catholic Church, and especially the Holy See. To find or to invent a division among us is their only hope. To foment the least divergence into a conflict is their chief policy. There can be no doubt that Gallicanism affords them their most advantageous attack. Catholics are visibly united on all doctrines of faith, even on the Immaculate Conception; but on the infallibility of the Pope, Gallicanism has caused a divergence, which Protestants think or pretend to be a contradiction in faith. The combined action of Gallicans within the Church and of Protestants without it, has given to this erroneous opinion a notoriety in the last two centuries, and especially in France and in England, which takes it out of the category of imperfect and innocuous errors which may be left to evaporate or to be absorbed. It has inscribed itself in the history of the Church, and will live on until, by the Church, it is finally condemned (pp. 43, 44).

The argument which we would submit is this. On the one hand certain thinkers, calling themselves Catholics, have lately

put forth doctrines on the Church's authority so fundamentally and even violently anti-Catholic ;-and on the other hand certain Gallicans, to whom the name of Catholic cannot justly be denied, have pressed their speculative doctrine to consequences so unprecedented and revolutionary ;-that signal advantage would apparently be obtained by some authoritative and infallible decision on the whole subject, which may suffice at least for practical purposes. We cannot therefore but indulge the hope, that such a decision may be given. As our illustration of those so-called Catholics, who are in truth no Catholics at all, we shall cite Janus's recent work; and as our illustration of revolutionary Gallicans, we shall take the two writers whom we have named next at the head of our article. In regard to the Archbishop's Pastoral, from which we have made two extracts and hope to make one or two more, we must otherwise be content with saying, that it has even increased the debt of gratitude owing to him from Catholics, not of England only, but of every country where the Church exists.

It will be necessary to notice Janus's work at very far greater length than Mgr. Maret's, because a translation of the former appeared in England almost simultaneously with the original, and has caused some little sensation here. Everything indeed was done by a certain very small but very zealous clique for this purpose. The book was heralded by a grand preliminary and concomitant flourish of trumpets. The "North British Review," (concerning which an official announcement has been made by the publishers that it is now conducted by the late Editor of the "Chronicle,") published a communicated article on Janus in its October number; two highly eulogistic articles in the "Saturday Review" followed suit; and then, in the second, week of the month, there came a contribution of Mr. Oxenham's to Mr. Murray's new periodical, the Academy." All these writers have united in a kind of triumphant war-dance, to celebrate the victory which they think Janus has achieved, and to rejoice over the unfortunate plight in which he has placed "the Ultramontane faction." Never was triumph more illusory; and never (we venture to predict) will any triumph have been more short-lived.

We cannot ourselves, of course, profess any reply to the whole book. That could only be done by a book equally large or rather indeed much larger; because again and again a flippant objection is stated in three lines, which cannot be gravely answered in less than three pages. Detailed refutations of this or that portion of the work are already beginning to appear in Germany; and in our next number we shall probably be able to place before our readers an account of considerable work done in that direction. On every side in England we hear learned Catholics, distinguished for their caution and moderation, speak with indignation at the sys