What his death was to his family can be easily imagined; it was hardly

less to a large circle of friends, acquaintances, and even strangers who

knew him only by name and by his works, but whose reliance on his

advice, example, and opinion had long been their best and surest

standard of duty.

FROM THE HECUBA OF EURIPIDES.

_A free translation._

BY AUBREY DE VERE.

[_The Chorus of Trojan Women lament their Captivity._]

STROPHE I.

Breeze of the ocean, fresh and free!

Whither, O whither wilt thou bear

The Exile, and her great despair?

Thou speed’st, and I must speed with thee!

Say, must some Dorian haven be

The home of Troy’s unhappy daughters?

O unbelovèd home!—or where

The father of most lovely waters,

Apidanus, goes winding by

The fruitful meads of Thessaly?

ANTISTROPHE I.

Or 'mid those isles of old renown,

Haply bright Delos’ sea-born glades,

Where deathless palms and laurels spread

Above their own Latona’s head

Green boughs (commemoration holy

Of that twin-birth that lit their gloom):—

There must I weep a captive’s doom?

There sing, with gladsome native maids,

Extorted song and melancholy

To Dian’s silver bow and crown?

STROPHE II.

Perchance, a slave in Athens pining,

On tap’stried walls these hands must trace

Minerva’s awful steeds and car

Still radiant from the Ten Years’ war;

Or blazon there the Titan race

Beneath the Thunderer’s wrath oppressed,

And every godlike head declining

Upon the thunder-blasted breast.

ANTISTROPHE II.

Alas my people, and alas

My fathers, and my country’s shore!

And thou, O Troy—’tis Fate’s decree—

Farewell! I see thy face no more!

Alas for thee, alas for me!

Above thy head the plough shall pass:—

Worse fate is mine, o’er ocean’s wave,

The conqueror’s plaything, and his slave.

THE TRUE IRISH REVOLUTION.

The Irish people, albeit much given to intermittent spasms of

insurrection, are at present as peaceable, and apparently as contented,

as the contending passions of local politicians and the intrigues of

imperial statesmen will allow them to be. The constabulary, in their

rifle-green and burnished accoutrements, continue to be the envy and

terror of the unsophisticated peasant; the queen’s writ runs

unobstructed in the remotest parts of the island; “the castle still

stands, though the senate’s no more”; and, save the sharp crack of a

rifle at Dolly-mount or the more death-dealing fowling-piece of the

sportsman, no warlike sound disturbs the quiet slumbers of the weary

sentinel or the superserviceable stipendiary magistrate.

And yet a revolution has been in progress in Ireland and in Irish

affairs elsewhere for the last three-quarters of a century as beneficent

in its effects and as tangible in its benefits as if blood had flowed in

torrents and the pure atmosphere from shore to centre of the land had

been polluted by fumes of villainous saltpetre. We mean that within the

memory of men now living a radical though gradual change has taken place

in the manners, habits, and tastes of the Irish people, but more

particularly in their literature, which after all is the best evidence

of a nation’s ability to think correctly and express accurately what

their minds are capable of conceiving.

Looking back to the condition of Ireland at the beginning of the

century—her domestic legislature annihilated and seven-eighths of her

people unrepresented in the imperial Parliament—beyond broken relics and

dim memories of a glorious past, it can be said truthfully that she had

no literature whatever, or rather no literature save what was alien and

hostile in tone and spirit. There were no native authors except those

who had earned pelf and unenviable notoriety by decrying Ireland’s

nationality, maligning her faith, and holding up to the contempt and

ridicule of the world the faults and foibles of her unlettered

peasantry. But, even had there been men of a different character, they

could not have found either encouragement or patronage; for the mass of

the population, thanks to the Penal Laws, could not read English, and

one-half at least could not even speak it.

The consequence, therefore, was that every young Irishman who felt the

spirit of literary ambition stir within him, as soon as he had attained

manhood, hastened to pack up his scanty wardrobe and turn his face

toward London—then as now the great intellectual focus of the United

Kingdom. The pioneers of this movement were generally men little fitted

to represent their country. They were merely adventurers, without

principle or honor, facile and versatile, and in some instances even

educated, but, from previous training and association, just such tools

as Grubb Street publishers loved to handle and the lowest class of

Britons delighted to patronize. They were the originators of the “Denis

Bulgruddery” and “Paddiana” school of so-called comic literature, and

were useless if they did not caricature in the grossest manner, on the

stage and in the newspapers and periodicals, their Catholic

fellow-countrymen. With them a priest was an ignorant and low-bred

tyrant; the peasant his abject, superstitious slave. This worthless

class, while it did much to destroy the moral effect produced by men of

a preceding generation, like Goldsmith, Coleman, O’Keefe, Sheridan,

Burke, Barry, and other distinguished Irishmen, did more to instil into

the popular mind of England that utter misconception of Irish character

and insensate hostility to the Catholic religion of which we find at the

present day such marked traces even among fairly intelligent men.

Those mercenaries were followed by others of a higher order of intellect

and of greater pretensions, of whom Crofton Croker and Sheridan Knowles

may be considered to have been the representatives. The drama, poetry,

and prose fiction of every description employed their attention

alternately, and in each they proved true to the baser instincts of

their nature and the traditions of the faction whence they had sprung.

They were stanch no-popery men of the Orange stripe, and, having a

Protestant, English audience to gratify, they were consistently and

virulently anti-Catholic and anti-Irish. When they wished to delineate

their co-patriots, whether before the foot-lights or in the pages of

cheap novels, they invariably divided them into two classes: the

high-spirited, accomplished Protestant gentleman, and the low,

grovelling, ignorant papist. Thus for many years did they thrive on

bigotry and fatten upon treason to the land that was unfortunate enough

to have given them birth. It was only natural that England should have

viewed with complacency the caricatures of a faith she had so long and

so strenuously proscribed, and a people whom she had robbed of the last

vestige of independence; but it is humiliating to reflect that the works

of such libellers were up to a recent period popular in Ireland, and

that their comedies and farces “have kept the stage” even to our own

day.

There were yet other candidates for fame, who, tired of the

provincialism of Irish towns, or impatient of the restraints which their

peculiar calling in life had placed upon them, sought an English market

for their intellectual wares—spoiled children of genius, men like Maginn

and Mahony, of much learning and fascinating accomplishments, fitted to

have conferred lasting honor on their country, but who, lacking the true

spirit of national dignity and personal respect, easily fell a prey to

one or other of the contending English parties, and sank to the level of

those who disgrace the noble profession of letters by making it

subservient to the base purposes of political factions. This class

contributed much of what is still to be found brilliant and entertaining

in English literature, but little that reflects credit on their

character as Irishmen.

Following or contemporaneous with them came another and a different

school of Irish writers, such as Lever, Lover, Maxwell, and even

Carleton; for, though the latter in many of his later works showed a

just appreciation of the vast improvement taking place in public taste,

his earlier and more popular productions, apart from their occasional

touches of true pathos and flashes of genuine wit, were devoted mostly

to caricature and exaggeration. Charles Lever, who has written so many

books, and who is yet the most read of all the Irish novelists of this

century, has been called the best recruiting sergeant the British

government ever employed; while Lover may be styled a gifted and

versatile buffoon in all save his lyrics. The first’s highest conception

of an Irish gentleman was one who broke his arm over a Galway fence, was

commissioned in the British army, blundered into all sorts of scrapes

and out of them, hated Napoleon, worshipped “Sir Arthur,” charged wildly

at Ciudad Rodrigo or Waterloo, and finally—married an heiress. His best

Irish peasant does not rise above the grade of Mickey Free or Darby the

Blast, while he seemed utterly unconscious of the existence of a very

important social element in all agricultural countries—the farming or

middle class, always remarkable for their sturdy common sense and

practical views of life. It was from this portion of his countrymen and

from the hardy mechanics of the towns that Scott drew his best and most

enduring portraits of Scotch manliness, shrewdness, and humor.

Lover, though tender and natural in verse, was singularly unfortunate in

his choice of subjects and altogether false in his attempts to develop

them. He also ignored the “middle classes,” and substituted for

gentlemen sentimental non-entities, and for the free-spoken,

light-hearted, and withal poetical plebeian, blundering boobies full of

chicane and deception. We can scarcely believe that the man who wrote

_Treasure Trove_ and _Handy Andy_ could have conceived such pathetic

songs as “The Angels’ Whisper” and “The Fairy Boy.”

Still, the works of these authors, though exhibiting many glaring

defects, were a great improvement on those of their predecessors, and

consequently they have not yet been consigned to the oblivion which has

enshrouded the productions of the bigots of the previous era.

But the revolution in Irish literature had commenced long before their

advent, and the credit of initiating it belongs to one who was not only

universally admired and applauded during his life, but whose fame

continues to augment as time rolls along, and the memory of his

extraordinary efforts in behalf of his faith and country becomes

brighter and more enduring. That man was Thomas Moore, the son of humble

Catholic parents, who, on account of his religious belief, was refused a

fellowship in the only university of which his native country could then

boast. Naturally disgusted at such ostracism, Moore, at the age of

twenty-three, went to London, and entered upon that brilliant career in

poetry and prose which has indelibly stamped his name on the history of

the literature of the nineteenth century. Never was the force of genius

better exemplified than in the life of Moore. A plebeian, a Catholic,

and an Irishman in the strongest sense of those terms; without

condescending to apologize for, or attempting to palliate, the facts of

his station and belief; with scarcely a friend or acquaintance in the

great metropolis, and no recognition in the world of letters, the poet

rose amid an aristocratic, Protestant, and anti-Irish community to a

position equal to the most gifted of Scotland’s and England’s men of

genius, and in his _Melodies_ far surpassed any lyrics that have been

written in our language since or before his time. In 1808 the first part

of that unequalled collection of songs appeared, and each successive

instalment but added to the popularity of the preceding. From the first

they became fashionable, and consequently popular. They were sung in the

drawing-rooms of princes and in the cottage parlors of the shop-keeper

and tradesman. Persons of every rank in life who knew little of Ireland,

and that little not to her credit, listened entranced to “Remember the

Glories of Brian the Brave” or “Oh! blame not the Bard,” and began to

think that a country that could produce such airs and so sweet a poet

could not after all be considered very barbarous. It was but a poor

concession, yet under the circumstances a most valuable one. It was the

first blow struck against the solid wall of prejudice with which English

society had surrounded itself.

Next to Moore we place John Banim, the principal author of the _Tales of

the O’Hara Family_. Banim, like Moore, sprang from the ranks of the

humbler classes and sought in London a field for his rare genius which

was denied him at home. Though a dramatist of no mean order, his

reputation rests principally on his novels, many of which, like the

_Boyne Water_, _Crohoore of the Bill-Hook_, _The Priest-Hunter_, and

_The Fetches_, are works of real power, interspersed here and there with

pleasantry and humor, but always moral, dignified, and true to nature.

The sale of Banim’s tales and shorter stories from their intrinsic

merit, and perhaps somewhat on account of their novelty, was very

extensive in England, and helped to increase the good feeling towards

the Irish people which the lyre of Moore had first called into being.

In Gerald Griffin, afterward the humble Christian Brother, Banim found

not only a friend but a powerful auxiliary. Griffin, of all the writers

of fiction in the English language, was the purest and most actively

moral. If we search all his works—and they fill nine or ten volumes—we

will not find an expression or an innuendo to offend the most sensitive.

The writings of the great English novelists of this century, like those

of Scott, Thackeray, and Dickens, cannot be said to be positively

immoral, though the author of the justly-celebrated _Waverley Novels_

often exhibited marked prejudice, and sometimes downright bigotry; while

his later rivals, when not satirical or trifling, can at best claim but

a negative morality for their teachings and tendencies. But the genius

of Griffin sprang from a pure Catholic heart filled with love for all

his kind, and consequently he wrote with a sense of religious

responsibility, and in a spirit of justice and rectitude rarely to be

found so thoroughly developed in a writer of fiction in our days. His

works have had a great influence on the popular mind of both countries.

But, though he first wrote in England, his sole and absorbing object was

to benefit his countrymen. When satisfied that the germ of his laurels

had begun to fructify in a foreign soil, he returned to his home, where,

amid domestic pleasures, and in daily communion with the characters he

so admirably portrayed and the scenes of natural beauty he so loved to

describe, he composed his more important and finished works.

Meanwhile, another and not less important impetus had been given to the

rapid change taking place in popular sentiment regarding Irish character

and literature, and this was in Ireland itself. The letters of “J. K.

L.”—the learned Dr. Doyle—on Catholic Emancipation and the Tithe

Question, and those of the present venerable Archbishop of Tuam on

similar topics, had thrilled the Irish heart and evoked in it a feeling

of national dignity and self-reliance that had long lain dormant; and

even the great O’Connell, amid all his professional and political

labors, found time to contribute his aid to the new movement. But it was

not till after 1840 that the various rivulets combined and assumed the

proportions of a mighty flood, which, bursting through the barriers of

ignorance and prejudice, overspread the entire land. Then began to

appear the theologians and ecclesiastical historians of Maynooth and the

antiquarian writers of old Trinity; the fiery ballads of the _Nation_

and the graceful and learned essays of the _Dublin Review_ and

_University Magazine_. Archæological and Celtic societies were formed,

the hitherto neglected _Transactions_ of the Royal Irish Academy were

brought into public notice, and the musty tomes that were crumbling to

dust and decay on the shelves of Trinity College library, after their

sleep of centuries, were explored, collated, and vivified. The names of

Murray, O’Reilly, Petrie, Todd, O’Donovan, O’Curry, Graves, Wilde,

Meehan, McCarthy, Mangan, and a host of other lesser lights, became

familiar to the intellectual world by their profound, subtle, or

brilliant contributions to the literature of the age. One thing alone

was wanting to complete this grand national revival: a Catholic

university—and even that soon came, not as a subordinate worker in the

common cause, but as the leader of the movement.

Yet, though general education and popular instruction, in their own

sphere, kept pace with the mental awakening in the higher departments of

learning, strange to say, the stage, generally considered the first to

yield to popular impulse, was the slowest and last to acknowledge the

improved spirit of the times, and even to this day clings to many of the

antiquated and bigoted so-called Irish dramas and comedies with

insensate tenacity. Theatrical managers still persist in presenting for

the amusement of patrons, a large portion of whom are Irish, the farces

and low interludes which fifty years ago were written to gratify the

anti-Irish and anti-Catholic feelings of the lowest class of London

society. A partially successful effort has been made recently to redeem

this gross and fatal error; better, or rather less bad, Irish dramas

have of late made their appearance, and let us hope the reformation,

once set on foot, will be carried out. There is no reason why we should

not have Irish dramas as good as Irish poems, tales, and other works of

fiction. If people will go to theatres, they ought not be compelled to

become interested spectators of outrages on faith and morals, and

patrons and supporters of those who commit the outrages.

Still, casting our memory back over the history of Irish intellectual

life for more than half a century, it would be scarcely an exaggeration

to say that since the _Renaissance_ epoch no country has given such

evidence, in so short a time, of mental fertility and activity as that

island which was once almost as famous throughout Europe for her

learning as for the piety of her children. Ireland has at last a

literature which is not only rich in ideas and information, but which is

both national and Catholic. Her history, once so obscure and

misunderstood, can now be studied with as much ease and satisfaction as

any in Christendom; her antiquities, formerly the spoil of the ignorant

or the jest of the sceptic, have been collected, arranged, and

scientifically explained in a hundred ways; while the lives and actions

of her great and holy men, from the earliest ages, have received full,

critical, and impartial justice. And as yet we have only seen the

beginning! If that be so fair and full of promise, what may not be hoped

for from the intellectual future of a keen yet imaginative, brilliant

yet conscientious, witty yet harmless in their wit, passionate in the

wider sense, yet profoundly religious, people?

THE BRIDES OF CHRIST.

IV.

ST. CATHERINE.

“Whom I shall wed,” said Alexandria’s princess, “rare

Of beauty must be, past imagining;

So great I shall not think I have made him king;

More rich, sweet-hearted more, than summer air!”

In dreams she came where courts such state declare

Of Mother and Son enthroned, that worshipping

She knelt, though royal: the Child placed a ring

Upon her finger, and she woke—’twas there!

So Catherine became Christ’s. Again she kneels:

With rose and lily, in white and purple clothed,

No shining host now hails the heaven-betrothed,

But God’s bolt shatters the sharp torture-wheels.

Then Night and angels her pall-bearers are—

The Bridegroom waits on Sinai lone and far.

V.

ST. MARGARET.

Of all the virgins pure that bear the palm,

There is not any one more meek and mild

Than sweet maid Margaret. Tending while a child

The flocks, she drew near, in the mountain’s calm,

To the Good Shepherd, like a trustful lamb;

She felt that God with man was reconciled;

She saw diurnal victory undefiled

Of light o’er darkness hoist the oriflamme.

Of Morning. So flashed she, in dungeon drear,

The Cross uplifted, till the Dragon foul

Crouched at her feet, in fear of that white soul.

O Pearl of Antioch, so soft and clear!

O Daisy, with the chaste dew on thy lips!

Thou touchest Christ with stainless finger-tips.

VI.

ST. BARBARA.

Dioscorus of Heliopolis

Shut his wise daughter in a lofty tower,

Jealous of lovers; therein, for her bower,

She caused three windows to be made, in this

Her father disobeying, but said: “It is

Through three clear windows that the Almighty Power,

The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, shower

Light on the soul—with light immortal bliss!”

Scourged, by the gold hair dragged, slain by thy sire—

A turbaned heathen!—soft as rosy May,

Yet resolute, and avenged by instant fire,

Christian Bellona! sweet-browed Barbara!

With the Red Mantle of thy fortitude,

Thy Tower and Cannon, be my soul endued!

MARSHAL MacMAHON AND THE FRENCH REVOLUTIONISTS.

The inconveniences resulting from the present system of transmitting

political intelligence from Europe to this country for the use of our

daily journals are serious. An event of importance occurs to-day in

London, Paris, Constantinople, or Rome; the same afternoon we read what

purports to be an account of the event in our evening journals, and the

next morning we are furnished with a few more details, accompanied often

by a leading article hurriedly written and based, as a rule, upon no

other information than that contained in the despatches. In twenty-four

hours afterwards the event is almost forgotten; and by the time that the

letters of correspondents on the spot, or the journals of the locality,

can reach us, the incident has become an old story and the interest

excited by it in the first place has faded away. This manner of dealing

with matters of great importance would be lamentable, even if the

information contained in the cable despatches were always correct, full,

and uncolored by prejudice; but too often the despatches are models of

what they should _not_ be—that is, they are incorrect in matters of

fact; marked by omissions of the truth and by suggestions of falsehood;

and disfigured, in the majority of cases when the events reported have,

or are supposed to have, some relation to the interests of the Papal

See, by an ingenious perversion of the real and natural meaning of the

incidents which they purport to describe. A heavy responsibility rests

upon the conductors of our daily journals in this matter—a

responsibility to which we should be glad to see them more sensitive

than they now appear to be. They know well enough how it happens that

the bulk of their cable despatches from the Continent of Europe is

continually affected by an evident animus against the Holy See whenever

there is an opportunity to display this feeling; they know well enough

why it is that, whenever possible, a coloring hostile to the church, and

calculated to excite Protestant or non-Catholic prejudice against her,

is given to events.

The greater part of the European despatches of the New York journals is

transmitted from London, being made up there chiefly from the despatches

of the Reuter Agency, supplemented by the special despatches received by

the leading London journals. The Reuter News Agency, which has its

ramifications throughout all Europe, and is conducted with admirable

skill and good management as a business enterprise, is in the hands of

Jews; its agents have peculiar relations with the governments which

stand in need of their services, and a system of mutual benefit is kept

up between them; in return for the monopoly of official news and other

similar favors on the part of the governments, the agents of the Reuter

company transmit only such intelligence as is agreeable to the

governments, and with such coloring as the governments wish. The

relations existing between the Italian government and the Reuter Agency

are understood to be especially intimate; and certain it is that from no

capital in the world has more false and distorted news been sent forth

than that which all the world has received from Rome since the Italian

occupation of that city. As for the Continental despatches taken from

the London journals and sent to New York, it should be remembered that

not one of the London daily papers is in the Catholic interest, and that

those whose despatches are most frequently sent to us—namely, the

_Times_, the _Daily News_, and the _Pall Mall Gazette_—are inspired by a

very lively hatred and fear of the church. We believe that the

conductors of our own daily journals are for the most part actuated by

honest motives. Their heads are sometimes deplorably at fault, but their

hearts are generally right; and, with rare exceptions, they are free

from the guilt of wilfully misrepresenting facts and designedly

deceiving their readers. But too frequently they do permit themselves to

be deceived or misled, in the manner we have explained, with respect to

the true meaning and co-relation of political events on the continent of

Europe.

The facts mentioned are, or should be, perfectly well known in the

editorial rooms of all our journals; and it is certainly to be desired

that our editors should cease to take their opinions at second-hand, and

should begin to exercise their own good and honest judgment upon events

as they occur abroad. If they were in the habit of doing this, and if

they were furnished with cable information of a correct and uncolored

character, they would not, we are certain, have fallen into the error of

regarding the recent change of government in France as a wicked, base,

and unprovoked conspiracy to destroy the republican institutions of that

country, but would have recognized in Marshal MacMahon’s action the

wise, absolutely necessary, and not too rapid determination of that

ruler to save the republic, if possible, while it is still worth saving,

and at all events to save France and society generally throughout Europe

from the convulsion, anarchy, and destruction into which the

revolutionists were so rapidly and surely dragging them. It is by no

means certain that Marshal MacMahon will now succeed in the task before

him; he may have waited too long. Nor are we concerned to prove that the

motives of the Marshal-President in his dismissal of M. Jules Simon, and

in his selection of his present advisers, were unmixed; but we are

anxious to show to our readers that his action was necessary, and that

the good wishes of Americans who reverence law and order, who detest

red-republicanism and communism, who cherish religious liberty, and who

dread and abhor tyranny, whether exercised in the name of many or of

one, should be on his side. “I am conscious,” said Marshal MacMahon nine

days after the dismissal of M. Simon—“I am conscious of having fulfilled

a great duty. I have remained, and shall remain, absolutely within the

bounds of legality. It is because I am the guardian of the constitution

that I acted as I have acted. To attribute to me an intention of

assailing the constitution is a misconstruction of my character. The

country will soon comprehend that my sole aim is the salvation of France

and of the government which she has given herself.”

We believe that these are sincere and honest words; and we shall have no

difficulty at least in showing that Marshal MacMahon could not have

acted otherwise than he did, unless he had been prepared to surrender

the virtual government of the republic into the hands of men who are

leagued together to destroy the rights of property; to degrade marriage;

to enslave, if not wholly to overturn, the church; to cut her off from

her connection with her earthly head; to reduce her prelates, if they

were permitted to exist at all, to the condition of servants of the

civil power; to exile her contemplative and teaching orders; to take

from her the right of educating her children; and to drag France, ere

long, into an alliance with the revolutionary associations in Germany,

Italy, Belgium, Spain, and Russia, which dream of establishing on the

ruins of religion and of society a new confederation from which God

shall be banished, and over which Satan shall rule supreme.

Comparatively few of the constituents of the Gambetta party in the

French Assembly are aware of the designs of the leaders of this faction;

but enough light has within the past few weeks been thrown upon their

machinations fully to justify the President in making a firm stand

against their further progress.

M. Jules Simon refused to aid the President in executing this

determination; and M. Simon was removed to give place to a minister who

would co-operate with his chief. So powerful had the Gambetta faction

become in the Assembly that the whole of the cabinet followed M. Simon

in his enforced retirement from office, and the President was for the

moment left alone. The men whom he called to his aid, however, and who,

indeed, had encouraged him to dismiss M. Simon, were prompt in taking up

the fallen reins of office, and the government, without a day’s delay,

began its work of preserving France from her worst foes. The task before

them is a most arduous one, and it has been begun none too soon. Let us

show how it became necessary that it should be undertaken at all.

The French Assembly was re-convened at Versailles on the 1st of May

after the usual Easter recess. During the vacation events had occurred

which made it probable that the long-threatened rupture between the

Gambetta faction, or Extreme Left of the Chamber, and the conservative

elements in the executive department of the government, could not be

delayed much longer. The administration had indeed gone to the very

furthest point of concession in endeavoring to satisfy the demands of

the Left. The consent of Marshal MacMahon had been given to these

concessions, but it was known that this assent had been extorted from

him with difficulty, and that he was personally of the opinion that the

more was given to the Gambettists the more would they ask, and that the

true and safe course was that of steady and uncompromising resistance to

their unconstitutional and revolutionary demands. The Left, by skilful

management of the press in its interest; by the manipulations of the

local public functionaries who had from time to time been appointed at

its request, or whom it had been able to purchase; by adroit

misrepresentations and exaggerations of the policy of the conservative

members of the Assembly; and by the not infrequent maladroit utterances

and acts of certain of the imperialist and monarchical members, had

contrived to make an imposing show of their strength in the country as

well as in the Assembly. It is no doubt true that, all other things

being equal, a large majority of the French people would prefer a

republic to any other form of government. But the republic which would

satisfy them is not at all the republic which would satisfy M. Gambetta

and his friends. The republic which the majority of the French people

desire is a republic in which property would be safe; in which law and

order would reign; in which God would be respected; and in which the

church would be free. The republic of Gambetta would possess none of

these characteristics; but Gambetta and his lieutenants had been allowed

to assume the attitude of the especial friends and defenders of

republican institutions, and many of their members in the Assembly owed

their election to the votes of good Catholics and sober citizens. They

now felt themselves strong enough to advance further, and to wrest from

the administration a still greater share of power.

Marshal MacMahon was himself irremovable for three years longer, only

four years of his Septennate having expired. But it might be possible,

in the opinion of the Gambettists, to force him to accept a cabinet

which should be dictated by themselves, and which would hand over to

them the virtual control of the government. One of the members of the

then cabinet, they believed, would be useful to them, and their plans

involved his retention. What was the nature of the communications which

are said to have taken place in secret between MM. Gambetta and Simon

cannot at present be known. Nor can we unveil the mysteries of the

correspondence which has been kept up during the last few years between

the controlling members of the French Extreme Left and the revolutionary

leaders in England and throughout the Continent of Europe. The

operations of the secret societies are seldom brought to light until

after their work has been accomplished—and not always even then. The

once famous “International Society of Working-men” has ceased to exist

for all practical purposes; but it, at the best, was only an engine

invented and put in motion by men who still are laboring in the secrecy

of Masonic lodge-rooms and in the caucus-chambers of hidden political

organizations to accomplish the destruction of Christian society and

Christian government. It cannot be doubted that a certain solidarity

unites the socialists of France, Germany, Switzerland, Belgium, Greece,

Hungary, Italy, Russia, Spain, and Portugal, and that they have the

means of acting together. The Gambetta faction in France by no means

stood alone in their recent attempt to gain the upper hand in the

administration of the republic; they had the active sympathy and the

moral support of their _confrères_ throughout Europe.

Now, the great bulwark of the conservative republic in France is the

Roman Catholic Church, the Roman Catholic faith, the Roman Catholic

people. So long as the church is free and undisturbed in France—free to

pursue her work of educating her children, preserving morality, and

saving souls—the French people, of whom all but a small fraction belong

to her, will remain tranquil and happy, and they would make short work

of men who proposed to set up in France a communistic and atheistic

republic. They are quite well contented with the republic as it at

present exists, and are hopeful of its future; under it the church for

the first time has been allowed full right of teaching; and the avidity

with which Catholics availed themselves of the privileges conferred by

the new university law sufficiently attests at once their intelligence

and their zeal. Still, the Catholics in France, like the Catholics

throughout the rest of the world, have a sorrow and a grievance; and

French Catholics, like all other Catholics, claim the right to express

this sorrow and to do what is in their power to redress this grievance.

The earthly head of their church is a prisoner in his own city; he has

been despoiled of his patrimony and plundered of his crown; his jailers

threaten from time to time to deprive him of the little that is left to

him; there is positive danger that the freedom of the election of his

successor will be assailed, and that the church throughout the world may

be subjected, through the malice of her foes at Rome, to the gravest

perils. The French Catholics conceive that it is their right and their

duty to protest unceasingly against this state of things, and to inspire

their government to speak in their name—and, if occasion arises, to act

in their name—for the purpose of protecting the Holy Father from further

insults and oppression, and of seeking to bring about the peaceable

restoration of his independence. In all this they are strictly within

the limits of their constitutional rights as citizens of the French

Republic.

Let us bring the matter home to ourselves. Suppose that a petition

should be drawn up praying President Hayes to instruct our minister at

Rome to represent to the government of Italy that nine millions of

American Roman Catholics felt themselves deeply aggrieved and injured by

certain acts of the Italian government towards the Pope, and that they

considered these acts all the more unjustifiable because they were one

and all in open and undisguised violation of the promises made by the

Italian government to the whole Catholic world; suppose that this

petition should be signed by every Catholic man and woman in the United

States and sent to the President; would it be said, then, that we were

exceeding our rights as citizens, and that we should be punished for our

temerity? The President might do as he pleased with the petition; he

might act upon it or cast it aside—that would be for him to decide; but

could we, as citizens, be blamed and punished for exercising the right

of petition in order to make known our feelings upon a matter which

touches us so closely? Yet this is all that the French Catholics have

done; and it is because of the solidarity of interests and of purpose,

of hope and of fear, which exists between the revolutionists and

socialists of Italy and of the other Continental nations that the

Gambettists in France were spurred up to make this perfectly legitimate

action of the French Catholics the pretext for a new and desperate

assault upon the liberties of the church in France—an assault under

cover of which, and aided by what seems to us very much like treachery

on the part of M. Jules Simon, they hoped to compel Marshal MacMahon to

capitulate to them.

The allocution of the Pope issued on the 12th of last March had moved to

the very depths the hearts of Catholics in France, as it had moved the

hearts of the Catholics of every other land. They felt that it was

impossible for them to remain silent after hearing that most pathetic

and powerful appeal; they wished that their reply should be as emphatic

as possible, and that it should consist of acts as well as of words.

They resolved to draw up addresses to the Holy Father; to organize

pilgrimages to convey these addresses, with their gifts, to Rome; and to

devise means whereby they could express to their own government their

anxious wish that it would use its influence with the government of

Italy in behalf of the restoration of the independence and freedom of

the Pope. Each of these projects was entered into with commendable zeal;

and early in April the Bishop of Nevers addressed a letter to Marshal

MacMahon, asking him, in the name of his flock, to use the influence of

France at the court of King Victor Emanuel and at other courts for the

protection of the Pope and for the restoration of his rights. The

marshal’s cabinet at this moment were greatly under the influence of M.

Jules Simon, the President of the Council; they were imbued with the

idea that it would not be safe for them to exasperate the Gambetta

faction; and they persuaded the marshal to approve a letter addressed by

the Minister of Public Worship to the bishop, in which entire

disapproval of his appeal was expressed, with the remark that “the

marshal, as a sincere friend of religion, saw with pain the clergy

intervening in internal, and still more in foreign, politics.” The

Gambettists were encouraged by this mark of weakness on the part of the

government, and prepared to push their advantage. But the Catholics did

not choose to take their views of duty from the dictates of a Council

whereof M. Simon was the chief; and they continued to organize their

pilgrimages and to draw up and circulate their addresses to the Pope. On

the 19th of April the Bishop of Nevers, not at all disconcerted by the

rebuke which he had received from the Cabinet, addressed a letter to the

Mayor of the Nièvre, in which he explained to that official what, in his

opinion, was the duty of all good Catholics occupying influential

positions.

“The Pope being no longer free in Rome,” wrote the bishop to the

mayor, “the result is that we ourselves are no longer free in our

consciences, and we consequently should use all our influence to

obtain a change in such an abnormal state of things, and the

restoration to the sovereign of our souls of the independence which

he absolutely requires in order to guide us. We must first instil

these views in the minds of the population whose interests are

confided to us. We must then concert together to cause similar

convictions to prevail in the various councils of the country.”

On the 20th, at a cabinet council, the general petitions of the

Catholics addressed to the government were taken into consideration, and

it was proposed that, in order to silence the complaints of the

Gambettists, who were declaiming violently that the circulation and

presentation of such memorials would embroil France in a difficulty with

Italy, the bishops should be ordered to forbid the further exposure of

these petitions in their churches for signature. But the marshal on this

occasion displayed a little more firmness and the matter was passed over

without action. A few days before this an event had occurred in Italy

that served to increase the distrust with which Marshal MacMahon already

regarded the secret intentions of the leaders of the Left. In Benevento,

near Letino, and again near Rome, the government had arrested a number

of socialists who, it appears, were engaged in a conspiracy for the

establishment of a Red Republic. The papers found on the persons of the

arrested men were of the usual inflammatory character, and set forth,

among other things, that “man ought not to be subjected to any tyranny,

human or divine; that the principle of private property is the climax of

infamy, because it creates inequality between men; that the union

between men and women ought to be free; and that the state is the denial

of the most sacred principles.” The chief leader of the band, who was

arrested with about fifty of his adherents, was a young Milanese named

Caffiero, a man of wealth and position; and an examination of his papers

disclosed the fact that his association was only one of a large number

of others spread throughout Europe, and that the names of some of the

leading radical republicans of France appeared upon a list which was

believed to enumerate the advisers and real leaders of the conspirators.

On the 28th of April, however, the cabinet again induced the marshal to

make another effort to conciliate the Gambettists, who had redoubled

their agitation against the Catholic movement, which had by this time

become very general throughout the whole country. On that day the

Minister of the Interior issued a circular to all prefects, directing

them to discourage the signature of the Catholic protests and petitions

by not allowing them to be publicly circulated within their respective

jurisdictions. The circular—to which Marshal MacMahon assented after

much pressure—instructed the prefects to regard these petitions and

protests as “an unjustifiable and illegal interference in the

legislative and domestic affairs of a friendly foreign state,” and to do

all in their power to suppress them. Gambetta himself could scarcely

have said more; but the marshal was quite correct in his opinion that

Gambetta would still ask for more. Meanwhile, the _mot d’ordre_ to the

Gambettists had gone forth to strike terror into the hearts of their

opponents by public manifestations. The students of the Sorbonne were

instigated into making violent assaults upon the Catholic universities;

on the 1st of May five hundred students assembled in front of the

Catholic university in the Rue de Vaugirard, where they insulted the

Catholic students and professors by indecent harangues and by singing

blasphemous parodies of a hymn to the Sacred Heart; dispersed by the

police, they separated only to assemble again before the Jesuit school

in the Rue de Shomond, where the same disorderly and disgraceful scenes

were repeated until the police arrived and arrested the ringleaders of

the mob. In all the cities where the Gambettists were sufficiently

numerous manifestations against the church and her liberties were

organized; and in some cases the zeal of the disciples so far outran the

directions of the leaders that it was with difficulty the latter

prevented the former from outrages which would have alarmed and

disgusted the whole country.

Affairs were in this condition when the Chambers reassembled on the 1st

of May. The Left lost no time in bringing forward their guns and forcing

the fighting. M. Leblond was put up by them in the Chamber of Deputies

to give notice of a question addressed to the government “as to the

measures which it proposed to take to repress Ultramontane intrigues.”

M. Jules Simon, hastening to comply with the demands of the men with

whom, as it now appears, he was secretly in accord, at once replied that

the debate on the proposed question could take place on the next day.

The Catholic members of the Chamber seem to have already distrusted the

sincerity of M. Simon. One of them—the eloquent and fearless Count de

Mun—announced that he and those who acted with him insisted upon a clear

understanding of the position of the government.

“We shall insist upon knowing,” said he, “whether the government

accept the responsibility for the campaign that is being waged by

means of impure calumnies against the Catholics of France. The

patriotism of French Catholics cannot be called in question; it is

above suspicion. In what we are doing—in what we wish to do—we are

claiming but our rights. We demand, however, that the government, to

which we give our support, should free itself from the

responsibility for the attacks made upon us, which render our

position intolerable.”

M. Simon seems to have perceived that matters were growing serious, and

that he could not much longer continue to pretend to serve two masters;

but he resolved to struggle still to maintain his position. On the

following day, after M. Leblond had put his question and supported it by

a harangue in which he urged that the government should at once proceed

to repress by the most stringent means “the Ultramontane intrigues,” M.

Simon addressed the Chamber in a speech highly disingenuous and full of

double meanings. It was virtually an appeal to the Gambetta faction to

permit him to remain in power in order that he might do their work;

while at the same time it was an attempt to throw dust in the eyes of

the Catholics by hypocritical professions of respect for religion and

its rights. The government had been blamed, he said, for permitting

Catholic newspapers to assail Italy; but the government could not

prevent this; the law would punish the writers, if what they wrote was

punishable under the law. On the other hand, the government would not

tolerate any attack upon the Catholic religion—“which it sincerely

respected”—and would protect the rights and liberties of Catholics. In

fact, the church in France enjoyed to-day more freedom than at any

previous time. But it was necessary to limit this freedom. For instance,

the government “tolerates” the existence of Catholic societies so long

as they are used only for the purposes set forth in their statutes, but

it had interdicted the Catholic committees which were employed in

political undertakings and which had “formidable ramifications.” Having

gone thus far, M. Simon thought he might as well go a little further,

and he proceeded to make a statement which was a direct insult to the

intelligence of the whole Catholic world. “The Catholic petitions and

the demonstration made by the Bishop of Nevers,” said he, “_were based

upon a fiction—namely, that the Pope is a prisoner in the Vatican_”;

“the law of guarantees has taken every care of the spiritual

independence of the Holy Father”! And he then went on to condemn the

petitions as “an interference in the internal affairs of a neighboring

country,” and to remind the Chamber that the government had done all in

its power to suppress these lawful manifestations of Catholic feeling.

The government, he added, would continue to protect the clergy as long

as they confined themselves to their spiritual duties, but would in the

future punish them severely “if they encroached upon the civil

power”—that is, if they continued to exercise their freedom and to

discharge their duty by protesting against the acts of the Sardinian

robbers, and by seeking to enlighten the public mind and conscience as

to the real condition of the head of the universal church.

This speech of the President of the Council was a virtual surrender to

the Extreme Left; but M. Gambetta was determined to force a more formal

and complete capitulation. On the following day, May 4, he resumed the

debate in a speech which he had carefully prepared, and which he

delivered with great eloquence and animation. Its spirit is expressed in

the sentence which was received with the loudest applause by the Extreme

Left: “It is time that lay society should drive back the church to that

subordinate rank which belongs to her in the state.” M. Gambetta, our

readers will perceive, is very far in advance of M. Cavour. The Italian

statesman dreamed of “a free church in a free state”; the French

revolutionist demands an enslaved church in an atheistic and communistic

state. Listen to him:

“The church has set citizens by the ears, alarmed France, and

troubled Europe. It is always thus: the monarchy was often compelled

to resist the encroachments of the church, but the republic must do

more, for now the state is assaulted on all sides in the name of

religion and her very existence is threatened. The Catholic

leaders—ex-ministers, senators, and members of this Chamber—have

exalted the Pope as the supreme ruler of France and of the world;

when the Pope has issued an order they exclaim: 'Rome has spoken and

must be obeyed.’ The Pope on the 12th of March commanded that an

agitation in his favor should be everywhere set on foot; immediately

we behold deputations of Catholic royalists calling upon the

Minister of Foreign Affairs, convocations being held, and petitions

circulated in spite of the feeble pretences of the government to

suppress them. It will not do to say that the church in France must

have the liberty which she enjoys elsewhere; she shall not have it,

for the reason, among others, that here the church is bound to the

state, and the state is responsible for the language and the acts of

the bishops. No longer must it be permitted that the Pope may

address himself directly to France, without having first obtained

the sanction of the civil power, and without first submitting to it

his bulls, briefs, and allocutions. No longer must the bishops be

allowed to address themselves to mayors and prefects, conveying to

the civil functionaries of the republic orders received from Rome.

It is useless to say that only a few of the bishops have done these

things; for these bishops represent the whole hierarchy, the church

is unanimous, and its submission to Rome is complete. There is no

such thing as resistance or opposition in the church; the old

Gallican liberties have been swept away by the Syllabus and by the

Vatican Council. The Pope must not be permitted again to usurp the

rights of the state, as he has recently done in appointing one of

his bishops chancellor of a French university and giving him the

right of conferring degrees. I cannot understand how it happened

that the papal instrument making this appointment was ever permitted

to enter France! We must no longer endure these things; we must

drive back the church to the place where she belongs. We need not

fear that the people will not be on our side; if there is one thing

more than another that is repugnant to France, it is the yoke of

clericalism; and it cannot be too strongly said that clericalism is

the enemy of the country.”

To this bitter harangue M. Jules Simon had no reply; he contented

himself with declaring that he and the cabinet were not subject to the

dictation of any power behind the throne, and that perfect harmony

existed between the marshal and himself. He hastened to add that he

would accept, in the name of the government, the order of the day

proposed by M. Leblond, which was in these words:

“The Chamber of Deputies, considering that the recrudescence of

Ultramontane manifestations constitutes a danger to the domestic and

foreign peace of the country, calls upon the government to make use

of the lawful means which it has at its disposal.”

This was adopted by a vote of 361 against 121; thus M. Gambetta won his

victory, and, so far as M. Simon could pledge it, the government was

pledged to carry out the demands of the foes of the church. This was on

the 4th of May. Marshal MacMahon, it appears, hesitated as to his future

course; but it appears also that he was conscious he had been betrayed

into an intolerable position. He seems to have determined, from that

moment, to dismiss M. Simon, and to appeal to the country to sustain him

in his refusal to comply with the unconstitutional and tyrannical

demands of the revolutionists; but, with what may seem to some an unwise

timidity, he resolved to wait for some other act on the part of M. Simon

which might be made the immediate ground for his dismissal.

He had not long to wait. During the next few days the sittings of the

Chamber were characterized by great excitement and tumult. M. Simon was

made the target of continual attacks; he was accused of having formerly

belonged to the International Society, and of having been morally in

league with the Communists who assassinated the Archbishop of Paris. He

defended himself with vehemence, but his affiliation with the Gambetta

faction became daily more apparent. He promised to draw up and send to

the bishops a stringent circular, warning them that they would be held

to a strict responsibility for all their future acts. The Committee of

the Budget, on the 12th of May, reported in favor of according the sum

annually paid for the support of the church, $10,626,199; but it

accompanied this recommendation with the remark that it was now the duty

of the government to revive and enforce a number of obsolete and almost

forgotten laws which had been enacted, from time to time, by various

governments which had desired to enslave the church. If these obsolete

enactments should now be enforced, no French bishop could visit Rome

without the consent of the government; no subscriptions for the Pope

could be raised in France; no papal brief or bull could enter France,

and no council or diocesan synod could assemble, without the consent of

the government; and the ecclesiastical seminaries would be compelled to

teach that the civil government is supreme in all things. M. Simon, it

was understood, was about to enforce these unjust and virtually

abrogated restrictions, and the Gambettists were in high feather. But

their exultation was soon to be changed into disappointment and rage.

The Chamber of Deputies had before it a bill modifying the organization

of municipalities, and another measure for the repeal of the law on the

restrictions of the press which had been passed two years ago to secure

social order. The cabinet had consulted upon these measures and had

agreed upon the line which the ministers should take in opposing them.

To this agreement M. Simon was a consenting party; it was well

understood between him and the marshal that when these measures came up

for decision M. Simon should explain that the government could not

consent to them. But the new masters of M. Simon held him to the

engagement he had made with them; and when these measures were brought

forward M. Simon found it convenient to be absent from the Chamber, and

the government was again betrayed. The patience of Marshal MacMahon was

now exhausted; he was perhaps glad that M. Simon had so soon furnished

him with a sufficient reason for his dismissal. Early on the morning of

May 16 the marshal, having, it is said, passed a sleepless night,

addressed the following note to M. Simon, and sent it to him without

consulting with any of the other members of the government:

“I have read in the _Journal Officiel_ the report of last night’s

proceedings in the Chamber of Deputies. I observed with surprise

that neither you nor the Keeper of the Seals put forward from the

tribune the reasons which might have prevented the repeal of a press

law, passed less than two years ago on the motion of M. Dufaure, and

which you yourself quite recently wished to see applied in the

courts of law. And yet it had been decided in several meetings of

the cabinet, and indeed in the council held yesterday morning, that

you and the Keeper of the Seals should undertake to oppose the

motion for the repeal of the law.... In view of such an attitude on

the part of the chief of the cabinet, the question naturally arises

whether he retains sufficient influence to assert his views

successfully, An explanation on this point is indispensable; for I

myself, although not, like you, answerable to Parliament, have a

responsibility towards France which to-day more than ever must

engross my attention.”

M. Simon, upon receiving this note, saw that between his two stools he

had fallen to the ground; but he made one more effort to again deceive

the marshal. He repaired to the Elysée with a letter of resignation in

his pocket; but before presenting it he asked the marshal if it were not

possible that they should continue to act together. “No,” was the reply.

“I have gone as far as I can possibly go in the wake of you and your

allies; I shall go no further.” M. Simon then presented his letter of

resignation, which was composed mainly of rather lame excuses for his

absence from the Chamber on the two occasions complained of by the

marshal. Immediately afterwards the other members of the cabinet

resigned, in order to leave the marshal full liberty of action; and by

the time the Gambettists had eaten their breakfasts they learned that

they had overshot the mark, and that, instead of forcing Marshal

MacMahon to accept their revolutionary programme, they had driven him to

dismiss from his councils the man on whom they most relied, and in all

probability to surround himself with men whom they could neither

frighten nor purchase.

The excitement among all the members of the Assembly was great as the

news spread; and a meeting of the Gambettists was called for the same

evening, at which a line of action was laid down. One of the first

things to be done, it was agreed, was to use the machinery at their

disposal “in order properly to inspire foreign public opinion,” so that

it might react upon France; and during the night “the republican leaders

sent to foreign journals instructions to insert opinions upon the

crisis” which would have the effect of alarming the marshal by holding

up before him the threat of the displeasure of Germany and Italy. The

London journals were especially inspired in this sense; and it was thus

that our own journals, re-echoing this echo of the Gambetta caucus, gave

their readers the idea that Marshal MacMahon had dismissed his cabinet

in order to destroy the republic and to engage at once in a war against

Italy for the restoration of the temporal sovereignty of the Pope. The

session of the Chamber of Deputies on the 17th was excited; and M.

Gambetta once more demonstrated the foolishness of those who, deceived

by his affected moderation and calmness during the last two years, had

believed that this _fou furieux_ had become a decent and practical

statesman. He moved the resolution which had been adopted at the caucus

the preceding night, and supported it in a speech full of fire and

venom. The resolution, which the Chamber accepted by a vote of 355

against 154, simply declared that “the confidence of the majority can

only be enjoyed by a cabinet which is free in its action and resolved to

govern in accordance with republican principles, which can alone secure

order and prosperity at home and abroad”—words with which no one can

find fault. But M. Gambetta, giving full vent to his rage at finding

himself foiled at the very moment when he was dreaming of victory,

declared that the dismissal of M. Simon had been brought about by the

intrigues of “a secret influence with which no ministry could cope.”

“It is not true,” he cried, “that the President of the republic

bears a responsibility over and above that of the ministry. We must

recall him to an exact observance of the constitution, and deliver

him from perfidious counsels. The country wishes to be rid of the

nightmare of those men of reaction who show their livid faces at all

moments of uncertainty. If the Chambers are dissolved we have no

fear of the result, but the country may see in it a prelude to war.

Criminals are those who would provoke it.”

No one thinks of provoking war save M. Gambetta and his friends, and

they are the only criminals. Marshal MacMahon was not at all dismayed by

this loud talk; on the same evening the new cabinet was announced. The

Duke Decazes and General Berthaut, Ministers of Foreign Affairs and of

War in the former cabinet, retained their portfolios; the Duke de

Broglie was made President of the Council and Minister of Justice; M. de

Fourtou, Minister of the Interior; M. Caillaux, Minister of Finance; M.

Paris, Minister of Public Works; M. de Meaux, Minister of Agriculture;

and M. Brunet, Minister of Public Instruction. The cabinet is a

homogeneous and a respectable one; as long as it remains in office the

country may be certain, at least, that order will be maintained and that

the plots of the Reds will be frustrated. During the morning of the 18th

the Gambettists were very busy in preparing to give battle to the new

cabinet. But they found themselves again disconcerted by the firmness of

the President, who, exercising his constitutional right, sent a message

to both houses, adjourning their session until the 16th of June. In this

message Marshal MacMahon explains that he has scrupulously conformed to

the constitution. He appointed the cabinets of M. Dufaure and of M.

Simon with the object of placing himself in accord with the majority in

the Chamber; but neither of these cabinets were able to unite in the

Chamber a majority capable of causing constitutional and proper ideas to

prevail.

“I could not,” the marshal went on to say, “take a further step on

the same path without making an appeal to the republican fraction

which desires a radical modification of all our institutions. My

conscience and my patriotism do not permit me to associate myself

even distantly with the triumph of these ideas, which can only

engender disorder and the humiliation of France; and so long as I

hold power I shall use it within legal limits to prevent that

consummation, for it would be the ruin of the country. But I am

convinced the country thinks as I do. It was not the triumph of

these theories which the country desired at the last elections, when

all the candidates availed themselves of my name. If it were to be

again interrogated it would repudiate such a confusion of ideas. I

am firmly resolved to respect and maintain the existing institutions

of the country. Until 1880 I can propose no modification, and

contemplate nothing of the kind. In order to allow the excitement to

calm down, I invite you to suspend your sittings for one month. You

will then be able to discuss the Budget. In the meantime we will

watch over the maintenance of public peace. We will suffer nothing

at home tending to compromise it; and it will be maintained abroad,

I am confident, notwithstanding the agitations which disturb a

portion of Europe, thanks to our good relations with all the powers

and our policy of neutrality and abstention. On this point all

parties are agreed, and the new cabinet holds the same views as the

old. If any imprudence in the language of the press compromises the

concord which we all desire, I shall repress it by legal means. To

prevent this I appeal to that patriotism which is wanting in no

class in France.”

Violent were the scenes in both Chambers when this message was read, but

they were cut short by the firmness of the new ministers. M. Gambetta

attempted to speak; his voice was drowned by shouts of “Down with the

Dictator!” In the Senate M. Simon essayed to deliver an oration, but the

Duke de Broglie announced that no one could speak, as the President had

adjourned the session. The houses separated in confusion, and the

Gambettists occupied themselves during the next few days in issuing

inflammatory appeals to the country. The new government began without

delay the task of strengthening itself by the removal of disaffected

prefects, sub-prefects, and other department officials, and this work

has been carried out with the same thoroughness that is displayed in our

own country after a radical administrative change.

All this is the prelude to an appeal to the country in the shape of a

general election for a new Assembly. The people will be summoned to

decide, not whether they wish a republic or a monarchy, but whether the

republic shall be entrusted to the extreme radical party or to those who

can and will save France from the ruin into which Gambetta and his crew

would engulf it. The decision will be waited for with anxiety, but

without fear on our part. The French people, we believe, are sound at

heart, and have no wish to resign themselves into the hands of men who

fear not God nor regard man save as a convenient tool for their own

ends. Meanwhile, however, the utmost circumspection should be exercised

by the new government. Prince Bismarck is enraged when he sees France

strengthening herself; he is delighted when he beholds her weakening

herself by internal dissensions. Thus growls of displeasure at the check

given to the Gambetta party have already been heard from Berlin, and the

German press has been instructed to represent that the new French

administration intends “to restore the Papacy through the humiliation of

Germany.” The Italian government, troubled with a bad conscience,

indulges in similar anticipations; and the first duty of the Duke

Decazes has been to reassure these cabinets and to point out that the

French government wishes simply to devote itself to the domestic

interests and safety of France. We believe that this is the plain truth.

If Marshal MacMahon and his present advisers are sustained, France will

be saved from domestic ruin, and her salvation will go far towards

checking the revolution in other countries.

The time will come, no doubt, when France will again assert herself in

European affairs, but with a wisdom gathered from her terrible reverses

and humiliation. For those reverses she had no one but herself to blame.

They were the bitter fruit of an overweening pride, and of the desertion

of those eternal principles of justice and right, and of the faith that

embodies them, close adherence to which alone makes nations truly great.

France is coming back to her faith, and with her faith will return her

greatness, her nationality, her life. Before, however, she can make her

voice heard in Europe she must speak in clear, calm, and not discordant

tones. She must be united in herself, one nation, one people, with one

heart and one soul. It is this that Germany dreads of all things, and

consequently the threats and intrigues of Germany and Italy will be

exerted to the utmost in aid of Gambetta and his faction, who, indeed,

have much strength of their own. While we are far from thinking that the

contest will be an easy one, we have little doubt as to the final issue.

The republic of order in France is the Catholic republic. The French

nation is Catholic. All the real glories of France are indissolubly

linked with the Catholic name. Her greatest disasters are as fatally

linked with the party of which Gambetta is to-day the ostensible leader.

It is time for Catholic France to gather herself together and arise in a

strength that she never before had the opportunity of possessing. The

way is open. She stands now quite untrammelled from alliances with any

dynasty or name. Her fate lies in her own hands, and the honest soldier

who has guarded so well her truest interests will not betray the trust

placed in him by his countrymen.

NEW PUBLICATIONS.

LIFE OF THE VEN. CLEMENT MARY HOFBAUER, C.SS.R. By the Author of the

Life of Catharine McAuley, etc. New York: The Catholic Publication

Society. 1877.

Father Hofbauer was a second St. Alphonsus in the Congregation of the

Redemptorist fathers, and the founder of the institute as existing

outside of Italy. He will probably be canonized; and it would not be a

matter of surprise if the veneration for his memory in Austria and the

neighboring countries, in case this solemn recognition is accorded to

his sanctity by the Holy See, should equal that for St. Vincent de Paul

in France. He was a plain, simple man, of humble origin, moderate parts

and learning, but truly angelic purity and miraculous sanctity. The

influence he obtained and the good he accomplished are simply wonderful.

The history of his life is graphically portrayed by the religious lady

who has written his biography. We could wish that every priest and every

ecclesiastical student in the United States might read it. The scandal

and mischief wrought by perverse men of brilliant intellectual gifts,

like Gioberti and Döllinger, by apostate princes, faithless prelates,

and unworthy or careless priests, are best repaired by such worthy

successors of the apostles as the Venerable Father Hofbauer. The study

of their characters and actions is better than the most thorough course

of polemics, as an antidote to every kind of pseudo-Catholic liberalism.

THE LIFE OF CHRISTOPHER COLUMBUS. By Arthur George Knight, of the

Society of Jesus. New York: The Catholic Publication Society. 1877.

Christopher Columbus is, and always will remain, one of the greatest

figures in history and one of the grandest of Catholic heroes. He may be

said to have passed through all human experience. He was born in poverty

and schooled in poverty. His days were cast in one of those eventful

periods in the world’s history when “the old order changeth, yielding to

the new.” With ideas in his mind just beyond his time, and convinced

himself of their truth and power, he had to struggle hopelessly for

years under the most adverse circumstances before he could imbue other

minds with the ideas that possessed him. He could only think and talk

and plan. He was powerless to act, for lack of means. He had the

satisfaction of being regarded as a dreamer by the enlightened men of

his time. At last his ideas prevailed, and resulted in the discovery of

a new world.

Then came his hour of triumph—a triumph unparalleled in history; and

after it, more bitter than his early struggles upwards, ingratitude,

contempt, chains, and misery. There is nothing more romantic than this

story, nothing fraught with more solemn lessons. Through all, through

triumph as through adversity, through poverty as through greatness,

stands out the true Catholic, who cherished his faith above all things,

who in all things looked first to the greater glory of God, and who from

first to last lived the life of a practical Catholic. Indeed he was

truly a holy man, and strong efforts are now being made for his

canonization.

It seems strange that this great Catholic figure should have fallen so

completely into Protestant hands. There are admirable histories of him

in English, works that have won deserved fame for their authors, but

they are all written by Protestants, who, however well disposed they may

be, must in the nature of things make mistakes when treating of Catholic

subjects. Grave mistakes have been made, not by Protestants alone, but

by Catholics also, in the story of Columbus’ life. It is with a view to

rectify these mistakes, and to present to the Catholic reader the true

story of a most important, edifying, and interesting life that Father

Knight has written the present volume. He has done his work thoroughly

well, and we have no doubt that the book will become a favorite with all

classes of Catholic readers.

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES OF DISTINGUISHED MARYLANDERS. By Esmeralda

Boyle, author of _Thistledown_, _Felice_, etc. Baltimore: Kelly,

Piet & Co. 1877.

This little volume is replete with interest. It recalls in graceful

language the memory of men who have honored by their upright lives and

heroic actions the gallant State that gave them birth. It is no small

boast for Maryland that no State in the Union has produced more men

distinguished for their ability, patriotism, and, above all, a

high-toned chivalry which could never stoop to aught having the flavor

of dishonor about it. These were the men who first won for our country

the recognition of European scholars and statesmen. Their lofty

principles, their graceful accomplishments, their scholarly attainments,

and their dauntless courage drew on them the eyes of the world, and

earned for their mother State the proud reputation she now enjoys. From

the time that Lord Baltimore landed on her shores to the present day no

public man has disgraced the fair record or blurred a page of the

history of Maryland. And, indeed, the beginning of her civilized days

was an eminently fit prelude to her whole subsequent career. From out of

the first colony established on the banks of the Chesapeake flowed the

doctrines of religious toleration and equal religious rights to all men

irrespective of clime and color, at a moment when witch-burning fires

lighted up the settlements of Massachusetts. The Indians of those times

for once felt that Christianity and civilization were blessings and not

a cloak to avarice and tyranny. “From the records left to us,” says Miss

Boyle, “it is evident that these teachers endeavored by all mild and

lawful means to elevate the hearts of the Indians to a knowledge of the

true God. The Indian of the present day, dwelling on the border-lands of

civilization, deems the white man a traitor to his word, an enemy to the

Indian race, and a breaker of compacts, whose perfidy must be retaliated

upon the innocent by fire and _tomahawks_. This is rather a sad

commentary upon the savage or the Christian of our times. Which is it?”

Miss Boyle appropriately begins her series of biographical sketches with

a notice of that truly grand historic figure, Daniel Dulany, the Nestor

of the Maryland bar. The unflinching advocate of probity and truth, and

a strong friend of freedom, he distinguished himself fitly for the first

time by counselling opposition to the famous Stamp Act. His eloquence

and fearlessness greatly helped the cause of the Revolution; for

although he opposed immediate separation from England, his burning words

kindled the fires of opposition to British rule. The name _parce

detortum_ is the same as Delany and indicates the Irish stock whence he

sprang.

The paper on Charles Carroll of Carrollton is extremely interesting. It

presents a very life-like picture of that great patriot, statesman, and

devout Catholic. We behold the courtly and polished gentleman, tinged

with the airs and manners of an education acquired in the gay capital of

France. And though fashionable Paris was at that time the hotbed of

infidelity, and Voltaire ruled supreme, young Carroll never became so

imbued with the madness of the hour as to abandon the strong Catholic

principles and spirit pious parents and teachers had early implanted in

his heart. His name will ever remain an honor to his native State, and

his virtues and loftiness of character an incentive to her children to

cling to the highest standard of a true gentleman’s life.

It is evident that Miss Boyle had abundant materials at hand, for she is

constrained at times to sacrifice method to condensation; and this,

perhaps, is the worst that can be said of her interesting volume. The

sketch of the Most Reverend John Carroll, first Archbishop of Baltimore,

is illustrative of this defect. The writer labored under an _embarras de

richesses_, and passes too brusquely from one incident to another.

It is not generally known, nor does Miss Boyle make mention of the fact,

which has been already announced in this magazine, that at the time when

John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, was supplicating George III. to

send more troops to America for the purpose of suppressing the unholy

rebellion against his majesty’s benign sway, Father John Carroll, the

Jesuit priest, was on a mission to Canada, seeking the non-intervention

of that colony in the efforts of the States to free themselves from the

yoke of British tyranny. And yet it is almost a Methodist article of

faith that the Jesuits have ever been the enemies of the republic, and

the sons of John Wesley its warmest friends.

William Pinkney, one of Maryland’s most gifted sons, whose eloquence

ranks him with Pitt, Fox, and Burke, receives a most fitting tribute

from the pen of Miss Boyle. The history of this wonderful man should be

known and closely studied by the young men of our time; for few lives

exhibit a more perfect pattern of true manliness. His struggles against

early poverty and the numerous difficulties attending the efforts to

acquire knowledge in those times gave earnest of his future success in

life. The late venerable Chief-Justice Taney spoke of him in these

words: “I have heard almost all the great advocates of the United

States, both of the past and present generation, but I have seen none

equal to Pinkney.” Rufus King, having once listened to him exclaimed in

a burst of enthusiasm “that the speech of Pinkney had enlarged his

admiration of the capacity of the human mind.” Of such men is Maryland

justly proud, and Miss Boyle has performed a timely and praiseworthy

task in having brought us face to face with the heroes of a past

generation, whose memory their native State should ever delight to

honor.

SIDONIE. (Fromont Jeune et Risler Aîné.) From the French of Alphonse

Daudet. Boston: Estes & Lauriat. 1877.

We understand that this story has had an enormous circulation in France.

This circulation we are inclined to attribute rather to the author’s

name than to any special excellence in the book itself. Alphonse Daudet

is one of the pet French novelists of the day, and it takes much to

destroy a well-earned reputation. _Sidonie_ is a repulsive story, told

with great skill, and embellished throughout by those thousand and one

delicate artistic touches, lights and shades, of which French writers

alone seem to possess the secret. M. Daudet is actuated by the very

laudable design of punishing vice, and showing in a very strong and real

light the awful, the tragic misery it brings upon the vicious and the

good alike. All very well. Novelists, however, who take up this kind of

theme—and many are very fond of it—have an unpleasant and untrue habit

of making their good people fools or simpletons. It seems to us that, as

a rule, good people, particularly good women, are remarkably keen in

detecting falsehood and scenting rascality. In _Sidonie_ it is all the

other way. One detestable little wretch of a woman, who has not half an

ounce of good in her whole system, sets all the good people by the ears,

destroys the peace of happy families, ruins a great business-house,

causes the suicide of several excellent and very charming characters,

and ends by retiring to that kingdom from which she should never have

been called—Bohemia.

It seems to us a pity that an author of such real power and skill in

delineation of character and plot as M. Daudet should waste himself on

the unutterably mean. We are not of the opinion that this world is given

over to the dominion of the devil and his servants. It is not heaven to

any of us; yet as between the good and the bad, all things considered,

we believe that the good have the best of the battle even in this life.

Of course novel-readers must have their villain, male or female; and the

female villain must, of course, be very, very bad. Their viciousness,

however, could be shown sufficiently, and the lesson it entails

inculcated, without making them the pivots on which the world turns. It

is the noble, not the ignoble, who really move the world; and until the

race of the noble is exhausted, novelists may as well draw their heroes

and heroines from that class. At least we object to their being for ever

depicted as fools.

The translation of _Sidonie_ is admirable. It is from the graceful and

cultivated pen of Mrs. Mary Neale Sherwood.

LEGENDS OF THE BLESSED SACRAMENT. Gathered from the History of the

Church and the Lives of the Saints. By Emily Mary Shapcote. London:

Burns & Oates. 1877. (For sale by The Catholic Publication Society.)

This is in every sense a most beautiful and attractive volume. The

author has collected a large number of legends connected with the

Blessed Sacrament. These are abundantly and very handsomely illustrated,

and the letter-press itself is admirable. There is much more, however,

than legends in the volume. The devotion of the church to the Blessed

Sacrament is traced down to the very days of the apostles, verified by

ample quotations, and illustrated by pictures taken from the Catacombs

and the earlier monuments of Christian art. This is indeed an excellent

and most valuable feature of the work. The whole is in keeping. The

devotion is brought up to our own days, and its wonderful growth and

development brought out in a clear and most interesting manner. The

author has done her work skilfully, gracefully, and reverently. The

admirable preface shows how much she is inspired by real love for and

devotion to the Blessed Sacrament. The last picture in the volume is a

large and admirably-executed portrait of our Holy Father Pope Pius IX.

THE DISCIPLINE OF DRINK: An Historical Inquiry into the principles

and practice of the Catholic Church regarding the use, abuse, and

disuse of alcoholic liquors, especially in England, Ireland, and

Scotland, from the sixth to the sixteenth century. By the Rev. T. E.

Bridgett, of the Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer. With an

introductory letter to the author by His Eminence Cardinal Manning,

Archbishop of Westminster. London: Burns & Oates. 1877.

The best notice we can give of this valuable work will be to make a few

extracts from Cardinal Manning’s letter. His Eminence says it is “the

first attempt to collect the counsels and judgments of Catholic pastors

and writers on the use of wine and on the sin of drunkenness.” He

believes the book will be “of signal use in clearing away a multitude of

prejudices, and perhaps some more reasonable censures, which have

impeded the efforts we are making to check the spread of intoxication.”

These “more reasonable censures” have been called forth by the words and

acts of associations not in the unity of the Catholic Church, and

particularly by Catholics having joined such societies and adopted their

“wild talk, worthy of the Manichees.” Father Bridgett’s book, then,

“will show how broadly the Catholic Church has always taught the

lawfulness of using all things that God has made, in all their manifold

combinations, so long as we use them in conformity to the law of God.

Drunkenness is not the sin of drink, but of the drunkard.” On the other

hand, “in every utterance of the church, and in every page of Holy

Scripture, wine is surrounded with warnings,” says his Eminence, and

adds that our author has “done well to point out that a new and more

formidable agent of intoxication even than wine has in the last three

centuries confirmed its grasp, chiefly upon the Teutonic and Anglo-Saxon

races.” So that “no exact precedents can be found in the past action of

the church as to the way of dealing with an evil new in its kind, and so

far more formidable both in its spread and in its intensity”; while at

the same time “the principles of the church are always the same, and, in

bringing forth things new and old, forms may vary, but the mind and

action are immutable.” The cardinal then proceeds to give his own views

of what should be done. He is in favor of “a widely-extended

organization,” and advocates total abstinence as the only hope for

multitudes, and a specially meritorious act of self-denial in those who

do not need it themselves, but embrace it for the sake of others.

But—and to this we would call particular attention—the “widely-extended

organization” should comprise, in his opinion, those who are not total

abstainers. He expresses satisfaction at Father Bridgett having quoted

in the appendix some words of his own. We quote them, too, because we

most heartily agree with them: “Now, my dear friends, listen! I will go

to my grave without tasting intoxicating liquors; but I repeat

distinctly that any man who should say that the use of wine or any other

like thing is sinful when it does not lead to drunkenness, that man is a

heretic condemned by the Catholic Church. With that man I will never

work. Now, I desire to promote total abstinence in every way that I can.

I will encourage all societies of total abstainers. But the moment I see

men not charitable attempting to trample down those who do not belong to

the total abstainers, from that moment I will not work with those men. I

would have _two kinds of pledge_: one for the mortified who never taste

drink, and the other for the temperate who never abuse it. If I can make

these two classes work together, I will work in the midst of them. If I

cannot get them to work together, I will work with both of them

separately.”

Father Bridgett has given in his appendix “a summary of the principal

Catholic organizations which have lately been set on foot in these

countries” (England, Ireland, and Scotland). Some of these organizations

include _partial_ abstinence in their rules. Another society is

mentioned as existing in some parts of Germany, and approved by His

Holiness Pius IX. and enriched with indulgences. The members of this

last promise total abstinence from _distilled_ liquors, and _sobriety_

in the use of _fermented_ drinks.

We hope this labor of love from the pen of Father Bridgett will have the

circulation it deserves.

SPIRIT INVOCATIONS; or, Prayers and Praises publicly offered at the

_Banner of Light_ circle-room free meetings by more than one hundred

different spirits, of various nationalities and religions, through

the vocal organs of the late Mrs. J. H. Conant. Compiled by Allen

Putnam, A.M., author of _Bible Marvel-Workers_, _Natty: a Spirit_,

etc. Boston: Colby & Rich. 1876.

_Quos Deus vult perdere prius dementat_ would be an appropriate motto

for this hodge-podge of nonsense and lunacy. Imagine a sane man being

called on to believe that he is listening to prayers offered by the

spirits of Tom Paine and Cardinal Cheverus through the same set of

“vocal organs”! It is evident that the “prayers” were all ground from

one mill, as there is the utmost sameness pervading them. Tom Paine

condescending to come down from the pedestal of his celestial greatness,

and praying with unctuous fervor to the God he blasphemed on earth, is a

spectacle highly refreshing; but more astonishing still is it to find

him surpass Father de Smet and Cardinal Cheverus in the ecstatic

intensity of a mystical devotion. “We pray not for more blessings,”

exclaims the pious Thomas; “we only pray that we may appreciate those

already received; and when we lift up our souls in prayer, asking that

thy kingdom may come on the earth, we do but ask that thy children in

mortal may know themselves and their relations to thee.”

It is evident that the author of the _Age of Reason_ has materially

changed his “spirit” since he exuviated his mortal coil, or perhaps he

has deftly substituted that of Mr. Putnam, A.M., for his own. This, we

rather suspect, is the case. Theodore Parker, too, has been to

camp-meeting up above; for a great change has come over the “spirit” of

the frigid founder of New England transcendentalism. He prays with a

_vim_ that no leader of a revival at Sea Cliff or Sing Sing could ever

hope to emulate, and appears shamefully unlike the Rev. O. B.

Frothingham’s ideal of a hero. Some of the prayers are quite touching,

and sound as if they had been pilfered from Catholic books of devotion.

KNOWN TOO LATE. By the author of _Tyborne_, _Irish Homes and Irish

Hearts_, etc., etc. Baltimore: Kelly, Piet & Co. 1877.

This little volume bears the impress of patient and painstaking care.

The author is the happy possessor of a pure and pleasant style, and yet

throws off nothing carelessly, as too many with facile pens are disposed

to do. The narrative is done in subdued colors, and nowhere is good

taste shocked by the utterance of extravagant or whimsical sentiments.

The plot of the story unfolds itself quite naturally, and, though the

_dénoûment_ is a hard one to bring about, it is done so ingeniously as

not to appear at all violent. We can conscientiously say of this little

book that it is a shade in advance of Catholic stories generally and is

well deserving a perusal.

THE PARADISE OF THE CHRISTIAN SOUL. By James Merlo Herstius, of the

Church of the B. Virgin Mary in Pasculo Pastoris, at Cologne. A new

and complete translation. By lawful authority. London: Burns &

Oates. (For sale by The Catholic Publication Society.)

A most complete manual of prayer for ordinary use. One cannot tire of

it. The present edition is illustrated; but the illustrations might

easily have been improved.

THE CATHOLIC WORLD.

VOL. XXV., No. 149.—AUGUST, 1877.

THE POLITICAL CRISIS IN FRANCE AND ITS BEARINGS.

I.—QUESTION STATED.

The attention of the world at large is at present fastened on two

important movements—the war between Russia and Turkey and the recent

political changes in France. Both of these have the same origin, but the

aspect of each is different. No one will dispute that both are fraught

with most momentous interests, that their development will be watched

with great concern, and that it is not impossible that their final issue

may change the religious features no less than the territorial limits of

Europe.

Our purpose in this article is to confine the attention of our readers

to the affairs of France; not with the design of narrating the

successive events which brought about the present crisis,[93] but with a

view to the principles involved in the struggle and their bearing on the

great interests of Europe, actual and prospective.

Footnote 93:

See THE CATHOLIC WORLD, July, 1877: “Marshal MacMahon and the French

Revolutionists.”

What agitates France at this moment is not an “ultramontane” and

“clerical intrigue” to restore “the temporal princedom of the Pope,” or

an “anti-republican” plot of legitimists to place Henry V. on the throne

of his ancestors, as our daily newspapers of all political parties and

the weekly Protestant journals of every sect would have the public

believe. The real political leaders in France today are representative

of none of these parties, nor are they champions of their distinctive

principles or advocates of their cherished measures. They have other

fish to fry. Some of the newspaper writers and correspondents would

persuade their readers that the change of front in France by the

government is owing to the influence exerted by Madame MacMahon over the

President of the Republic, her husband. Drowning men catch at straws,

and men who lack common sense clutch at any flimsy pretext to bolster up

a foolish project.

The day of the supremacy of such influence in great state affairs is

gone by; and, even were it not, the character of the men engaged in this

weighty piece of political strategy is not made of stuff that would

incline them to be led by the nose by a woman, whatever may be her

reputation for piety or her supposed or declared inclinations for

legitimacy. We venture the opinion that the most estimable Christian

wife of the Marshal-President of the Republic of France is not wasting

her time in fruitless political intrigues, but employs it better in

telling her beads, in taking care of her children, and in works of

charity to her neighbor. All these are random shots.

The raising of such false issues, however, serves the purpose of their

inventors in throwing the public attention off the true scent, and

thereby prolonging the opportunity for them to invent new schemes

against public order and society under the restored leadership of the

octogenarian, M. Thiers. This was their manœuvre in 1871, and “Prince

Bismarck regretted the fall of M. Thiers, because he would have

infallibly thrown France into the arms of M. Gambetta and anarchy.”[94]

They also afford them additional chances of escape from the due and

certain punishment which is impending over them.

Footnote 94:

See Count von Arnim’s pamphlet, _Pro Nihilo_.

These pretexts show also the craft of those who make them and the

simplicity of their dupes. For they are well aware that there is a large

class of persons, especially in Protestant communities, whose

prepossessions are stronger than their attachment to Christianity, and

there are no absurdities too great for them to swallow, provided only

you bait them with the cry of “Popery!” “Vaticanism!” “Clericalism!” As

for those who are caught by the cry of “anti-republicanism,” they appear

not to understand that a king without the popular instincts of a people

in his favor is a mere cipher, and that the age is past and never again

to return, at least in Europe, when, as an Eastern despot, the king dare

say: “_L’Etat, c’est moi_.”

The transformation that has taken place in the nations of Europe, the

expansion of their narrow lines of policy into broader political

principles, has been so rapid and powerful that its force in our day has

passed beyond all possible human control. These principles have become

profound convictions, and for not heeding them the people of France

dethroned Charles X. and Louis Philippe; and were Henry V. placed to-day

upon the throne of France with the intention of attempting to restore

the ancient _régime_, it would be as vain, even though he should have

Marshal MacMahon and the army at his command to back him, as an effort

to stem and throw back the mighty torrents that pour their waters over

the precipice of Niagara.

The tendency of modern society to a political equality, without

distinction of the privileges of birth or rank, has its root in the

spirit of Christianity. The Catholic Church, in this sense, is the most

democratic institution that has ever existed upon this earth. There is

no barrier in the path for its humblest member to become its chief in

power and dignity. It is not seldom, too, that those who have risen from

the lowest walk in life have been elected to this high position. The

spirit of an age, rightly interpreted, is the breath of the Almighty

stirring within men’s souls, which finds its utterance in their voices,

even in spite of themselves. Nowhere has the Catholic Church been given

such fair play, though this is yet imperfect, as in the democratic

republic of the United States. This fact has been recognized by the

supreme pastor of the faithful, Pius IX., and again and again he has

called the attention of the world to it.

France has the opportunity under the presidency of Marshal MacMahon, if

she only knew how to profit by it, of forming a political government

adapted to the genius and character of her people and in harmony with

her present wants and future greatness; to govern herself, if she wishes

it, independently of an emperor or a hereditary monarch; and this task

will be accomplished, unless hindered by that enemy of all rational

liberty—a destructive radicalism. If the young Napoleon, or the Count of

Paris, or Henry V. ascends the throne of France, it will be due to the

Thierses, the Simons, and the Gambettas and their abettors.

II.—TWO MOVEMENTS IN THE WORLD.

There have been from the beginning only two fundamental movements in

this world, and these are becoming in Europe more and more distinct,

powerful, and antagonistic. The one has its source in the Catholic

Church, which is the concrete form of the direct action of God on

society in view of man’s true destination. The other consists in

rebellion against this divine action, and finds on earth its

headquarters and expression in heresies, in despotisms, and, more

particularly in recent days, in organized secret societies.

III.—FIRST MOVEMENT.

The order and stability of modern society and civilization are based

upon the truths which find their root and support in the doctrines

unswervingly taught and uncompromisingly upheld by the Catholic Church.

Among these great truths are the divinity of Christ and the divine

establishment and perpetuity of his church upon earth; the

unquestionable responsibility of both kings and peoples to the law of

God; the indissolubility of the marriage tie and the sacredness of the

family; the reign of the law of justice between man and man, and, when

violated, the strict obligation of restitution; the sacredness of oaths

and the equality of all men, without distinction of rank, color, or

race, before God. By the undeviating application of these and other

great first truths of divine revelation and of human reason, at the cost

of the lives of millions of her children; by withstanding the fierce

attacks of the barbarians of the northern forests of Europe; by her

contest with Mahomet and his followers; and by her resistance to the

errors and vices of her inconsistent and disobedient children, the

Catholic Church formed the conscience of modern society, founded the

nations of Europe, united them in a universal commonwealth called

Christendom, in view and as the means of establishing the reign of God

in men’s souls and upon earth, as preliminary to the kingdom of heaven

hereafter, issuing finally into the Christian cosmos.

Such has been the work of the first movement.

IV.—SECOND MOVEMENT.

All heresies, all despotisms, all secret societies have this postulate

in common: that the overthrow of the Catholic Church is a _sine qua non_

to their attaining ultimate success. Hence there is an instinctive and

unanimous sympathy among their adherents whenever there is an attack

aimed against the Catholic Church—an unmistakable sign of their common

origin and an unquestionable proof of their parentage. Peoples of

countries distinguished for their profession of universal toleration and

championship of the right of every individual to the enjoyment of his

own religious convictions will applaud to the skies the violation of

these principles, provided the persecuted be only Catholics! Every right

guaranteed by constitutional law, every principle of divine and human

justice, may be trampled under foot—yea, with sympathy and

applause—provided those who do so are animated with hatred for the

Catholic Church! Witness the public sympathy, both in England and the

United States, with the war of imprisonments, fines, and banishments

waged against Catholics, with murderous intent against their church, by

the “iron and blood” chancellor of the Hohenzollern Empire; witness the

confiscations and sacrilegious spoliations by the crew of infidels of

Italy, led by a Mancini, against the church; witness the banishment of

all the Catholic priests without exception from its district, in

violation of the federal constitution, by the canton of Berne, and the

robbery of the churches built by the sacrifices of loyal Catholics,

which are given over to the use of a rebellious and insignificant

faction by the authorities of the Swiss so-called republic; witness, to

come nearer home, the assassination, by the agents of secret societies,

of the President of Equador, and, within a few weeks, the poisoning of

the Archbishop of Quito at the altar! There are none to raise a voice,

not to say a cry of horror or indignation, among these sticklers for

liberty and justice, in condemnation of this wholesale tyranny, these

cruel persecutions, and this secret and deadly violence. This is well

known by the atheists, who aim at the ruin of all Christian

institutions: that to delude a large class in these so-called

liberty-loving countries, and gain their sympathy, material aid, and the

use and support of their press, all that is required to make them run

like an enraged bull at a red rag is to shout lustily, “Ultramontanism!”

“Vaticanism!” “Popery!”

Herein lies also the interpretation of the assertion of the governments

actuated by an anti-Christian spirit and under the influence of members

of secret societies, to whom they are bound to trim, that the present

attitude of France is dangerous to the peace of Europe. That is, the

secret designs of radicalism are detected, and their plots are in danger

of being checkmated. “Let the galled jades wince.” At the same time it

gives the explanation of the motives of Marshal MacMahon, which is

nothing else than to head off the efforts of these anti-Christian

conspirators, and prevent France from falling into their hands and the

civilized world from witnessing the repetition of the atrocities of the

Commune of the _petroleuse_ notoriety of 1871. A large portion of the

people, and with them the press, of England and the United States, is

duped by cunning and designing men; and probably, if all were known, a

portion of Bismarck’s Reptile Fund has found its way to their shores and

done some service.

The present crisis in France is fraught with her deliverance as well as

that of Europe from the most desperate and wide-spread organized

conspiracy that has ever existed in the world. They fail to interpret

rightly public events and to discern the signs of the times who take it

to mean anything less than the saving of Christianity and modern

civilization in Europe.

“Let order die!

* * * * *

Let one spirit of the first-born Cain

Reign in all bosoms, that, each heart being set

On bloody courses, the rude scene may end

And darkness be the burier of the dead.”

Such is their aim, and it is also their undisguised and outspoken word;

for these men “know not how to blush.”[95]

Footnote 95:

If any of our readers wish authentic information on this point, they

will find it abundantly in a book entitled _Les Libéraux Peints par

Eux-Mêmes_. Par G. Lebrocquez. Paris: Victor Palmé, 1876.

And these are the chief characteristics of the second movement.

V.—THE LINES OF BATTLE.

The explosion of the first mine laid by secret societies has been heard

in the outbreak of the war between Russia and Turkey, if we are to

credit Disraeli, than whom no man is in a position to be better informed

of the decisions gone forth from their secret revolutionary

headquarters. Unless thwarted by a counter movement, prompted by the

instincts of self-preservation on the part of all the Christian and

conservative elements of European society, we may expect to hear, as in

1848, the successive explosions of revolution in Paris, Vienna, Rome,

Madrid, and Berlin; and being more skilfully planned, and more

extensively spread, and more powerful, a revolutionary upheaving of the

populations in St. Petersburg and London as well as in the lesser

centres of Europe, is not improbable.

Men who read in consequences their causes will not fail to see the

significance of the position taken by the President of the Republic of

France; for, whatever may be his reputation as a politician, his

military sagacity and strategical genius are unquestioned. President

MacMahon’s change of cabinet is the first declared, earnest, and decided

step taken to avert from France and all Europe this great and

threatening catastrophe. For Jules Simon surreptitiously attempted to

insert the edge of the radical wedge, whose butt end is made up of

socialism, communism, and anarchy, into the Republic of France, which M.

Gambetta, his aspiring and designated successor, would have

energetically and logically driven home and riven her asunder, to the

delight of her enemies and to the advantage of her foes. Let us hope

that the President of France has taken time by the forelock.

The die is cast; there can no longer be any neutrality or secondary

motives to divide one’s allegiance between these two distinctly-drawn

camps. He is a traitor to Christ and a renegade Christian who stands

aloof or hesitates which side to take when a battle is fairly drawn

between Christianity and atheism. Every Christian, whatever may be his

peculiar tenets, will make common cause when the primary truths of

divine revelation and the first principles of morality are at stake. All

political party designations will be sunk into oblivion by men who

intelligently and disinterestedly love their country and their race,

when both society and civilization are endangered.

The present crisis in France is a call to both religion and patriotism,

in their best and widest sense, to unite in a common defence of their

truest and highest interests.

There is no alternative, and he who does not see this battle imminent in

Europe is like an officer on board of a ship, lulled in a dream of false

peace or disputing about the rigging of his vessel when the enemy is

fastening a torpedo to its bow that will in a few seconds blow them all

into atoms and send their vessel to the bottom of the ocean.

The conservative elements, if not from higher motives, will be forced to

unite from the instinct of self-preservation to save their property from

the _petroleurs_ and their necks from the guillotine.

VI.—THE ISSUE OF THE BATTLE.

This movement in its weak beginnings in France, regarding only impending

dangers to the state, will not exhaust itself until it has restored the

Catholic Church to her normal position in Europe. This final result is

no more intended by the leaders of the movement than it was the design

of the Allied Powers to restore the Papacy at the downfall of the first

Napoleon. It is a divine law that man acts, but God directs.

“There’s a divinity that shapes our ends,

Rough-hew them how we will.”

There is, then, this increasing purpose running through the history of

God’s dealings with the human race: to bring into clearer light the

divine character of his church, his spouse, rendering it less and less

possible for men to recognize his existence and not be Christians, and,

being Christians, not to be Catholics. This is the key of universal

history.

There is not an “ultramontane,” a “clerical,” or a “papist,” in the

sense in which these words are used by those hostile to the actual

movement in France; and if its final outcome be favorable to the

Catholic Church, it is because this is the nature of things.

VII.—ERRORS OF MODERN PHILOSOPHY.

Europe for the past century has been in the state of transition to a new

epoch—a renewal of Catholicity. This statement is in flat contradiction

with the assertions of some modern thinkers who claim the title of

philosophers. They would have us believe that religious motives—or, as

they term it, “theological motives,” which is the same thing; for

theology is nothing else than the scientific statement of religion—are

exhausted. This is equivalent to saying that human nature is exhausted;

for religion is what lies deepest in human nature, and consequently all

other motives will be exhausted before those of religion.

Religion is the very essence of man’s nature; for it springs from the

intellectual sense of his entire dependence for existence on an absolute

cause. Religion is, in its last analysis, reason’s recognition of God

and man’s fulfilment of his relations to God. Religion and reason are,

therefore, correlative.

Men who pretend that religious motives have ceased to have a strong hold

upon human nature labor under a complete hallucination. First they fancy

that those faculties through which God acts on the soul, and which bring

the soul in contact with God, have by some strange freak suddenly become

defunct. That religious motives to an almost incredible extent have

become extinct in some men’s souls we, with pain and pity, admit; that

this is the case with the bulk of mankind is an egregious mistake. There

has seldom been an age when religious questions occupied so large a

share of intellectual attention as our own; and religious motives still

influence the bulk of mankind in their conduct.

It is too true, however, that a class of men have fatally succeeded, by

a false education and an erroneous philosophy, in paralyzing the action

of the noblest faculties of the soul; but this disease is confined to a

small class. Deluded men! they would have the rest of mankind to esteem

their descent as a privilege and count their defect an honor.

The second form in which the symptoms of this malady manifest themselves

is the eschewing of the first principles of sound logic. As “God is a

provisionary idea,” or “man’s intuition of himself projected into

space,” or “the creation of a wish”—so runs their premise; and the

religious faculties of the soul having become extinct, they jump to the

most absurd of all conclusions: “God is extinct,” “the soul’s

immortality is a fable,” and “religion is a worn-out superstition”! The

inspired Psalmist wrote in his day that none but “the fool said in his

heart, There is no God.” Were he now to come upon earth, he would be

surprised to see the fools of his time dressed in the garb of

philosophers and proclaiming from the house-tops as the highest wisdom,

“God is extinct!” These delirious minds are like the ostrich, which,

when on the point of being captured, blinds its eyes by thrusting its

head under the sand, and foolishly fancies, because of its incapacity to

see, it has destroyed its pursuers and escaped all danger.

“Le nid n’a pas créé l’oiseau.”

“I tell thee, friend, a speculating churl

Is like a beast some evil spirit chases

Along a barren heath in one perpetual whirl,

While round about lie fair, green pasturing places.”

The eternal God is, and in him is all that lives, moves, and exists, and

his providence directs all things to the end for which he called them

into existence.

The world is not out of joint, nor is the responsibility of setting it

right placed upon the unsteady and feeble shoulders of inventors of

absurd religions, the cogitators of false philosophies, or the dreamers

of sterile Utopias.

God is not ousted from his creation as easily as these ambitious

philosophers, who are so ready to occupy his place in the universe,

would have the world believe.

VIII.—MISTAKE OF MODERN PHILOSOPHERS.

The mistake of a class of speculative thinkers consists in regarding the

state of transition of society from one epoch to another—in interpreting

a phase of religion—as the change and vanishing of the indestructible

elements of all religion.

A certain class of truths suits one age, awakens the greatest enthusiasm

and profoundest devotion, and in another epoch falls dead almost upon

the ears of men and hardly calls forth an audible response. Epochs

differ from epochs in their aspirations and instincts, like those of

individuals; and this is a law of the providential education and growth

of the human race. One race of men differs from another in its capacity

to seize hold of, appreciate, and give the proper expression to certain

truths, and in turn is brought to the front ranks in the providential

march of humanity. And this is the intention of the Author of the human

family. Men of the same race differ also greatly from each other; for in

the wide universe there are no two things in all respects precisely

alike, and in this is seen displayed God’s creative power.

These separate epochs, this variety of races, and these differences

among men afford to Christianity the opportunities and means of giving

expression to the great truths contained in all religions of which she

is the adequate representation. For Christianity is the synthesis of all

the scattered truths of every form of religion which has existed from

the beginning of the world, and the Catholic Church is its complete

organic, living form. Christianity is the abstract expression of the

Catholic Church, which, in the successive centuries of her existence,

has come in contact with every race of men, and has known how to

Christianize and retain them in her fold in harmony with their natural

instincts. She has met humanity in every stage of its development, from

the intellectual and refined Greek to the man-eating savage, and, by

working on the foundations of nature, she has captivated them to the

easy yoke of Christ. The Catholic Church alone has known how to supply

the defects of human nature and correct its vices while giving free play

to its instincts and retaining the charm of its native originality—not

by a superior human sagacity or a preternatural craft, as sophists would

make the world believe, but because in her dwells that divine Spirit

which breathed into man’s nostrils the breath of life, and made him a

living, rational, immortal soul, and in whom he lives, moves, and has

his being.

God is not extinct nor are religious motives effete. The mistake of

these theorizers consists in supposing that the present is the finality

of Christianity, whereas the hand of God is opening the way by purifying

his church, by directing the movements of nations and the issues of the

world, in order that she may shape the coming future beyond all past

experience in her progressive approach to the perfect realization of her

divine Ideal.

“An age comes on, which came three times of old,

When the enfeebled nations shall stand still

To be by Christian science shaped at will.”

IX.—NEW UNITED CHRISTENDOM.

Are the intelligent Christians of our day sufficiently aware of the

serious character and the extent of the dangers which are now impending?

Do they appreciate the import of the questions which engage and agitate

the active intellect of their contemporaries? Are they sensible of the

weight of their responsibilities, and ready to lift their minds and

hearts to the grandeur of the mission of the age in which their lot is

cast?

He who can see things as they are throughout the world where the

Christian faith has spread, and appreciate them rightly, cannot help

seeing that a fresh unfolding of the great design of Christianity in all

its simplicity, vastness, and splendor, and a stricter application of

its principles in the several spheres of life, alone are adequate to

meet all the genuine aspirations and satisfy the honest demands of this

age.

The attack is against the primary truths of reason no less than the

essential truths of divine revelation, and the defence, to be adequate

and victorious, must at least be equal to the attack. Thus the law of

reaction is forcing upon the leading Christian minds a reaffirmation of

natural and revealed truths with a completeness and a force which the

world has not up to this time witnessed. There can be no compromise with

the false principles of atheists in religion, revolutionists in the

state, and anarchists in society. Their errors must be refuted and their

movements counteracted. The positive side of truth must be brought out

and clothed in all its beauty. The true picture must be presented and

contrasted with the false, so as to captivate the intelligence and

enlist the enthusiasm of the active minds of the youth of the age. This

is the great work that, in the economy of God, is mainly left to the

initiative of individual minds of the members of his church. It is the

work of Catholic genius illuminated by the light and the interior

inspirations of the working of the Holy Spirit. The Church, in every

critical or important epoch in her history, has always given birth to

providential men; these are her Gregories, Augustines, Benedicts,

Bernards, Francises, Neris, Ignatiuses, Vincents of Paul.

As in the past, so in the present, a new phase of the church will be

presented to the world—one that will reveal more clearly and completely

her divine character. “It is the divine action of the Holy Spirit in and

through the church which gives to her organization the reason for its

existence. And it is the fuller explanation of the divine side of the

church, and its relations with the human side, giving always to the

former its due accentuation, that will contribute to the increase of the

interior life of the faithful, and aid powerfully to remove the

blindness of those—whose number is much larger than is commonly

supposed—who only see the church on her human side.”[96]

Footnote 96:

_An Exposition of the Church, in view of recent Difficulties and

Controversies and the present Need of the Age._ London: Pickering.

1875. THE CATHOLIC WORLD, April, 1875, p. 128.

The reintegration into general principles of the scattered truths

contained in the religious, social, and political sects and parties of

our day would reveal to all upright souls their own ideal more clearly

and completely, and at the same time present to them the practical

measures and force necessary to its realization. By this process sects

and parties and antagonisms would become as far as possible extinct—not

by way of antagonism, but by the power of assimilation and attraction.

Just as the lesser magnet is drawn to the greater by cords of attraction

identical with its own, only more intense, more powerful, and

all-embracing, so the fragmentary truths contained in error, when

reintegrated in their general principles, will be drawn to them and

their division disappear. Christianity once more will be perfect in one,

and, uniting its forces for the conversion of the world, will direct

humanity as one man to its divine destination.

X.—THE KINGDOM OF GOD ON EARTH.

Is not such a consummation the answer to the devout aspiration of all

sincere Christian souls? Is it not also the promise of Christianity, and

was it not the object of the most earnest prayer of its Founder when

upon earth? The Son of God did not pray in vain.

Underneath all the errors and evils found among men of all times is the

prime desire for the knowledge of the truth and the native hunger for

the good. Now, the absolute truth which contains all truth, and the

absolute good which contains the supreme good, is God. God is therefore

the ideal of the rational soul, the term of all its seeking, and the end

of all its wishes. The perfect union of the soul with God is bliss.

Again, Christianity does not confine itself to the reign of God in the

soul; it seeks to establish the reign of God upon earth. “Thy kingdom

come; thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven,” was the petition of

Christ to his heavenly Father. His life was not confined to

contemplation and preaching; he “went about doing good.”

Genuine contemplation and action are inseparable. He who sees truth

loves truth, and he who loves truth seeks to spread the knowledge and

the practice of truth. Divine love is infinitely active, and, when it

has entered the human heart and has set it on fire, it pushes man to all

outward perfection and visible justice. No men have labored so zealously

and so efficiently for their fellow-men, for the establishment of God’s

kingdom upon earth, as the saints of God.

The love of God and the love of man are one. God promises his reward not

to the ignorant, or to the indolent, or to the indifferent, but to those

who visit the prisoner, feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty,

clothe the naked, to the doing of good works as the evidence of the true

faith.

The Catholic Church teaches to men their true relations to God and to

their fellow-men, and by the practical application of the principles

which govern these relations are removed the errors and vices which

hinder the establishment of the reign of God in men’s souls and

everywhere upon earth. The history of civilization since the moment of

the church’s institution on the day of Pentecost is nothing else than a

record of the several steps of progress of society, under the guidance

of the Catholic Church, in reaching this goal. Whatever elements the

nineteenth century possesses superior to Judaism, paganism, barbarism,

and Islamism are due to the uninterrupted action of Christ upon the

world through the Catholic Church. Modern civilization may be defined as

the result of nineteen centuries of action of the Holy Spirit dwelling

in the Catholic Church in establishing the reign of God in men’s souls

and the kingdom of heaven upon earth. “God is now taking the dross out

of the crucible, so as to render his people free from all alloy, and

once more to clothe the church for which our Lord delivered himself up

with beauty resplendent with glory. And when God shall have accomplished

this, he will remove the rod of his justice from the church, and, that

his divine name may no longer be blasphemed, he will give her victory, a

victory far more brilliant than her sufferings have been terrible. May

this triumph not be delayed!”[97]

Footnote 97: