will only remark that if it were well founded it would be so in other countries just as much as in France; but from an examination of the political situation in the principal States of Europe that does not appear to be the case.

Belgium, for example, offers the spectacle of a nation which for more than twenty years has been governed by Catholic Ministers supported by majorities animated by the same sentiments as their leaders, and not only is it impossible to affirm that liberty has suffered thereby, but on the contrary it is an indisputable fact that the liberty of the Press, of opinions, and of discussion, parliamentary and otherwise, and (to speak more especially of the subject in hand) the right to teach, are more unrestricted in that country than in many others; and in no State are social legislation and active democratic organisation more developed.

The German Empire, under the impulsion of Prince Bismarck, engaged during the first years of its existence in a memorable struggle with the Catholic Church, not unlike that which was undertaken in France by the Ministers of the Third Republic. Not only did that struggle come to an end when Prince Bismarck had to appeal to the Catholics for their assistance against the Socialists, but the aspect of the situation has entirely changed since the accession of William II. A considerable degree of liberty has been restored to the Romish Church, the Sovereign seeks for every possible opportunity to manifest towards it his sentiments of respect and of sympathy, and far from considering it as a force which is fraught with danger to the Empire, treats its representatives and its adherents as valuable allies.

May I not add that England also gives a striking example to the civilised nations of what the spirit of liberty can do for the satisfaction and the peace of men's consciences? I believe that since the time when religious quarrels were extinguished by Catholic emancipation and the old cry of "No Popery" ceased to resound, the country has had no reason to complain of the part which has been played in English society by the bishops and the clergy of the Roman Catholic Church, and that neither their loyalty nor that of their pupils has ever been doubted for a moment. Were it necessary to consider the question from the point of view of their solicitude for the interests of the people and of their capacity to understand its needs, the great services rendered by Cardinal Manning would at once force themselves upon our memory.

Facts, therefore, in the most eloquent and decisive manner refute a theory which is based upon historical reminiscences interpreted with passionate partiality, wholly inapplicable to the

conditions of contemporary society, and serving only to resuscitate the disputes of the past; or which is founded upon doctrinal dissertations the meaning of which has been insufficiently studied and wherein the most essential distinctions, to which the Church itself has continually drawn attention, are entirely neglected.

But, as I have proved by an historical statement which appears to me to be far stronger than all the theoretical discussions of my opponents, it is not merely against the Catholic Church and its doctrines that the "lay " movement, as it is called in our country, is directed, but against Christianity itself. In vain do certain minds, by reason of the direction imparted to them in early years by their French Protestant education, from the influence of which they have, by the way, emancipated themselves, attempt in this connection the maintenance of impossible distinctions, and strive thereby to justify their conceptions in the eyes of neighbouring nations in general and of England in particular. More than a hundred years have passed since Burke, in his Reflections on the Revolution in France, in the course of his demonstration of the fact that religious principles are far more necessary in the case of a democratic than in that of a monarchical government, answered those very pretensions with these words: "Violently condemning neither the Greek nor the Armenian, nor, since passions have subsided, the Roman system of religion-we prefer the Protestant; not because we think it has less of the Christian religion in it, but because, in our judgment, it has more. We are Protestants, not from indifference, but from zeal." This reply might be addressed to-day to those who seek the approbation of interested parties for their anti-Christian campaign.

In reality the term "anti-Christian" is not strong enough; for the attack is in fact directed against the very idea of religion. An important member of the present Ministerial majority, who intervened with decisive effect in the Senate in connection with the abrogation of the last guarantees of scholastic liberty, said two years ago, "The triumph of the Galilean has lasted for twenty centuries: it is now his turn to die. The mysterious voice which once on the mountains of Epirus announced the death of Pan, to-day announces the end of that false God who promised an era of justice and peace to those who should believe in him. The deception has lasted long enough: the lying God, in his turn, disappears." The politician who spoke in these terms-M. Delpech-adds to the authority which his parliamentary position gives him that conferred by the lofty functions which he exercises in the realms of Freemasonry. I doubt if the true meaning of this fact is quite understood by

my readers, who are accustomed, as far as I can judge, to look upon Freemasonry as a charitable and harmless institution. France was the victim of that illusion at the end of the eighteenth century, and has had only too good reasons for curing herself of it. To-day all anti-Christian legislation, all hostile measures directed against the Catholics, are prepared and forced on the country by the Masonic body, which has all the force of a political caucus. It was at Masonic assemblies more than elsewhere that all laws directed against educational liberty were, and still are, elaborated, preparatory to their being dictated to the Ministers and submitted to Parliament.

Well-informed writers have often noted traces of the same inspiration in the history of the Revolution. Thus, from every point of view, the present crisis brings before our eyes the tradition of that decisive epoch, and at the same time makes manifest the strange contradiction existing between the principles of liberty in the realm of politics proclaimed in 1789 and the intellectual despotism in the realm of philosophy inaugurated by the hatred of Christianity, which dates from the same period. The existence of that contradiction is freshly affirmed in our own day by the pretension which the modern Jacobins try to force down our throats: by the attempt made, as in times past, under cover of the catchwords supplied by the principle of the essential unity of the State, to establish a certain doctrine. which is incompatible with the very idea of liberty of conscience. M. Clémenceau has tried, no doubt, to save the principle of liberty from the inevitable consequences of his anti-Catholic theory, and to maintain that the former could remain intact, and even be developed to the highest degree, even after the latter had received its definite consecration by the destruction of all Christian education. But none of his opponents and few of his friends considered that he had succeeded, and the latter clearly pointed, as the former had foreseen would be the case, to the supremacy of State teaching and State education as the normal outcome of the new legislation.

This essay should naturally terminate with an attempt to forecast the ultimate issue of the religious crisis from which France is now suffering, but that would necessarily entail an examination of the whole problem of the relationship of Church and State, of which the question of the Congregations and of education is but one of the aspects; and my readers, whose patience I have tried only too severely, will doubtless understand that I cannot, at this stage, begin the treatment of a new and so extensive a development of my subject. It will suffice if I state my conviction that the idea of the separation of Church and State-which is extolled by our adversaries as the necessary

end of the struggle and as constituting a new governmental formula-is, in the present condition of our political institutions and of our religious habits, a dangerous chimera. Here again the lessons of history provide an ample proof. The outcome of the experiment which was made, from 1795 to 1799, in the direction of such separation, under the influence of the same ideas and of the same violent passions, was a ferocious persecution of the Catholic clergy and religion. The result would be the same to-day. To the attempt originated by the Revolution an end was put by the signing of the Concordat, the determining cause of which was, in the mind of Bonaparte, the spontaneous revival of the Catholic faith after the bloody period of the Terror. If the situation has altered in our days, it has changed in the sense that the religious movement has, in spite of certain political phenomena, become more intense and more deliberate than it formerly was, no less in intellectual circles than among the people.

While the governing classes, victims of an incomprehensible blindness, strive to tear up the imperishable tree of Christianity, it is putting forth fresh roots, which are penetrating ever deeper and deeper into the souls of men. Banished from its place in the laws and institutions of our country and in the ranks of officialdom, the Church is daily winning an unexpected place in the life of the nation as the result of the very fact that it has been persecuted and of the natural spiritual needs of mankind. Now more than ever it appears in the light of a moral force, immense and indispensable, whose influence no prudent Government can possibly misapprehend. An attempt may be made to combat it, but to ignore it is impossible; sooner or later they will have to come to terms with it. Whatever the extent, the duration, and the effects of the present crisis may be, that must be the inevitable conclusion, for that alone can guarantee that measure of religious liberty which is compatible with the conditions of the age in which we live.

High above the disputes, the passions and the excesses of all political parties, one fact dominates the history of these last years; though obscured by the thick cloud in which religious discord has involved us, it has yet been clear to all who can penetrate into the heart of the nation. I mean the existence of an immense, a universal aspiration towards reconciliation and appeasement; of an imperious desire, which must triumph in the end, to see the hearts of all drawn closer to each other; and to see all those who are already united by the strong and indissoluble bonds of patriotism fuse and combine in singleminded devotion to the service and the welfare of our country. A. DE MUN.

THE POSITION OF THE UNIONIST

PARTY

AN OPEN LETTER TO THE PRIME MINISTER

SIR,-Those of your loyal followers who believe you to be seriously misinformed as to the state of Unionist opinion in Parliament and the constituencies can no longer remain silent in face of a situation which seems to them to threaten the cause of the Empire, no less than the fortunes of the Party. Since the opening of Mr. Chamberlain's campaign, we who adhere to the Imperial programme with every fibre of our conviction have nevertheless been prepared and anxious to support his Majesty's Ministers upon any conditions short of compromising the future. Upon the fiscal movement, in its wider and nobler sense, we hold the maintenance of the Empire to depend. Apart from the definite scheme of fiscal federation which we advocate, and which the Colonies are willing to embrace, there can be in our view no unity of the Empire. There can be no security for the Empire. There can be no development of the Empire compatible with the permanent cohesion of all its component parts under the British flag. There can be no such progress of our dominion as will be needed at no distant date to make its existence possible in presence of the rapid growth of rivals who already surpass us in population and are gaining upon us in wealth, trade, and power.

Unless we can develop the Colonies by positive measures that will at the same time strengthen the Mother Country and promote that increase of commerce between them upon which the hope of retaining our maritime and naval supremacy must ultimately rest-unless we can do this, sentiment will not suffice for ever and will perhaps not suffice for long.

These are not speculations which can be supposed to preoccupy the mind of Sir Alexander Acland-Hood. Like Rosamond Vincy's it is probably not large enough for little things to look small in. It cannot be reasonably expected to admit