It cannot be denied that the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland has, by custom, a constitution in many respects analogous to the condition of a protected Church by the side of an Established Church. It is admitted also, on all sides, that this position of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland is opposed to the Statute Law; and upon the strength of such a state of things in Ireland, where the law has been from time immemorial systematically violated, either from the force of the national character, or the weakness of the executive Government, it is contended that the Crown must submit to a similar violation of the law in England, where the law has been from time immemorial respected. Surely this reasoning cannot be sound. If it be expedient that the Pope should be allowed to exercise full power in England, the law at least should be altered, so as not to impose on those subjects of her Majesty who execute the Papal Rescripts the hard necessity of violating the law of the land.

Again it has been said, that if the English nation should refuse to submit to a similar condition of things to that which prevails in Ireland, it would be like the strong man refusing to share the burden of his weaker companion; it would be like the man who lives under a roof of slate refusing to lend a helping hand to extinguish the flames in his neighbour's roof of thatch.

Such, however, is not a correct view of the case. It would be far more just to liken the resolution of the English nation to the man who does not hesitate to extinguish the fire which has reached his own roof, although it may be impossible for him to stay the fire which is devouring his neighbour's house. He may regret, indeed, that his neighbour's house should be devoured by the flames, but he will at least have succeeded in preserving a refuge for his houseless neigh

bour, instead of both having to seek for shelter in vain amongst blackened walls and smouldering rafters. It may be urged, however, that there is a question of principle involved in the maintenance of identity between the legal systems of England and of Ireland. If this be so, it must in this case be either a religious or a political principle. If a religious principle is contended for, it is impossible to overlook the allimportant fact, that the religious principle was abandoned in 1791 — when religious toleration was granted to the Roman Catholic subjects of her Majesty precisely as it has been abandoned in almost every state of Europe, exclusive of those in the Iberian and Italian peninsulas. But although the religious principle has been abandoned, the question of degree remains open. This indeed is a matter of positive law, and is properly subject to political considerations. The practice of European states confirms this view.

On the other hand, if it be said that a political principle is involved in maintaining an uniformity of legislation in regard to England and Ireland, it is difficult to understand how it has come to pass that uniformity of legislation has been so repeatedly disregarded.

Uniformity has never existed in matters of finance, as Ireland is subject neither to an excise duty, nor to the assessed taxes, nor to the income or property tax. Uniformity has not been adopted in regard to the Electoral franchise and the law of Elections. Uniformity has not been kept in view with reference to the Poorlaws and their administration. Uniformity has not been sought in regard to a State-subsidy for the education of the Roman Catholic Clergy of Maynooth, nor with regard to the Regium Donum to the Presbyterian

Clergy of Ulster. Uniformity has not been maintained in reference to the system of national education. The difficulty is far greater to discover in what respects uniformity of legislation has been observed, than to detect where diversity exists: and in the presence of the prominent diversity to which the instances just cited testify, it would be very unreasonable to contend that any political principle is at stake in refusing to maintain an uniformity of law between the two countries.

On the other hand, if it should be thought expedient to maintain an uniformity of law and practice between England and Ireland, two courses present themselves. It is admitted as a fact, on all hands, that at present, the Statute Law is a dead letter in Ireland. One alternative, therefore, which is suggested, is, that the executive Government shall ignore the violation of the law in England.

In the present case, we may expect that either the traditional reverence of the English people for the law will not tolerate its infringement, or its good sense will revolt at allowing an inoperative law to remain upon the statute-book. Besides, the practice of ignoring an open violation of the law is most dangerous in the way of precedent, and is a provocative to anarchy.

The other alternative, which would be far more worthy of a great nation, consists in repealing the laws which are now systematically broken, as involving a matter of detail substantially indifferent, after the principle of toleration has once been conceded. Popery at present, as distinguished from the Roman Catholic religion, is in fact an article of contraband, and it is smuggled into the country in defiance of the law. If the State recoils from enforcing the statutory

penalties against the violators of the law, let the law be repealed, for it has become a scandal. This would be a statesman-like method of dealing with a difficulty, if it should prove to be of a character that eludes legislation. But the embarrassment which this policy would entail, cannot be overlooked. If there were any definite bounds in the ecclesiastical system of Rome to the Papal authority; if the system itself were not inflexible, and its claims unlimited, nothing would be more simple than to deal with the question in the way of positive arrangement, through the medium, not indeed of Concordat, but negotiation; or even irrespectively of any communication with the Court of Rome. But the spirit of the Papacy is more ultramontane in proportion as the Holy See finds its position in Europe more isolated, and its claims. to enlarge its so-called spiritual circle of activity increase in proportion as its temporal sphere of action becomes restricted. A Pope who is feeble in a temporal point of view, is obliged, ex necessitate rei, to fall back upon his spiritual power, in order to maintain his consideration, at home as well as abroad. Hence the necessity which the great Catholic powers have felt to maintain the political independence of the Holy See, as an element in the balance of power in Europe. Hence, when Napoleon proposed to Austria to establish the Pope permanently in France, and provide a dotation for him, the Emperor of Austria replied by a similar offer, on a more liberal scale.*

* The importance of being able to deal with the Pope immediately, as a sovereign power, in the way of request or remonstrance, is obvious in the case of Roman Catholic powers. England, by persisting so long in ignoring the political power of the Pope, has renounced the use of the vantage position, which other sovereign powers occupy in that respect.

The following circumstance, however, which the history of Europe establishes beyond a doubt, must be placed in the opposite scale. Every state of Europe, whether in ecclesiastical communion or not in such communion with the Holy See, has been forced, at some stage or other of its relations with the Papacy, to make a stand against its encroachments, and say, resolutely, "thus far shalt thou come, and no further;" for the Papal power being, according to its own theory, unlimited, knows, in practice, no other bounds than those which are set to it by the civil power. The duty, accordingly, of prescribing limits to its action, must devolve, sooner or later, upon the State in every country. Even in Belgium, where the constitution has been most carefully and most skilfully adjusted, in order to escape any collision with the Papal power, the attempt has failed. Austria, it is true, has embarked upon a great experiment, by suspending the "Placet" of the Crown, which the Emperors of Germany, in the plenitude of their greatness as the temporal stay of the Papacy, dared not hazard. The fruits of this experiment will not be ripe for many years.

The question, therefore, under this head, may resolve itself into a question of opportunity; and its solution will depend upon the answer to another question-whether the existing restraints upon the action of the Papal power within the realm of England, can be relaxed without immediate inconvenience to the State, and without compromising the result of a future struggle with the Papacy, whenever the necessity for it shall arrive.

On the other hand, it may be said, that the genius of Popery, as distinguished from the Roman Catholic religion, is essentially opposed to the spirit of the English