article of the programme before the first. But Mr. Parnell does not so place them. This bill will not come from the Irish representatives. It will be an English offer, not an Irish ultimatum—a sop to take the place of a satisfaction.

Should such a bill be offered, it will be accepted, of course; it is decreasing the length of the enemy's sword by even an inch, and increasing the Irish blade.

"Local Self-Government" means, more or less, the abolition of the English official network that now ties the hands of the Irish. people for the greatest and the least movement. It means the abolition of the principle of nomination by the government of grand juries, sheriffs, magistrates, and membership of the following boards: The Local Government Board; the Board of Works; the General Valuation and Boundary Survey; the Board of National Education; the Prison and Reformatory Boards, and the Fishery Board. It means the transfer of all these to county boards, elected by the people, which shall take charge of all union workhouses, asylums, hospitals, prisons, reformatory schools, and other institutions supported by local rates.

The bill offered by the English ministry next session will probably not be so sweeping in its reform; but a change that shall pass any of this local machinery into the hands of the people is a change to be accepted.

"Local self-government" will be a large assistance toward attaining national self-government. They are all bound up together -registration of laborers, land reform, and industrial development. But the principle of nationality must be kept in advance. Whatever contracts are to be made between England and Ireland—and it is evident that the period of contract-making has come-can only be made with safety between the Parliaments of the two countries, and not between the English government on one side, and the individual Irish counties, towns, corporations, or farmers, on the other.

The recent grant of two-and-a-half million dollars to migrate poor families from crowded to uncrowded districts in Ireland, was an advantage; but as soon as a corporation was formed in Ireland to collect money from the people, to coöperate with the English government in this movement, the advantage was lost, and the principle misunderstood. England may well grant "favors," if she can induce the Irish farmers, or the clergy, or any distinct class in return, to bind themselves directly to the Imperial treasury, by mortgage or gratitude.

Irish nationality is unsafe so long as England is in a position to treat directly with any class of the people, and not with their national representative government. No country would be safe, in which

the states, towns, or individuals were allowed to mortgage their property and allegiance to a foreign government. Why, then, is the self-government principle held in abeyance? Why is not the machinery of the National League set working without delay, for its main object?

There are three influences which impede the progress of the new agitation. One is natural, one conservative, and one radical.

First. The subsidence of one great agitation compels a passive or fallow season, a period of rest, before another can be entered. upon. Agitation is a wave-motion on the sea of reform. The Land League harvest had used up much vitality. The silence and inaction of a winter were necessary for recuperation.

Second. In every country, there is a conservative class, influential, educated, timid of change, willing to go on as at present, or to seek for slow reform in the direction of the present line. This class, composed of various elements, is strong in Ireland. It rather fears the possible action of an independent Irish Parliament. On one side is a fear that Home Rule would be " Rome Rule," while in another is a dread that secret societies and other uncertain elements might dominate the government. Added to these is the purely British Catholic belief, which more or less affects Ireland, that if the Irish members left the British Parliament, the English Catholic party would be wholly unrepresented there, except by Protestants or atheists, and the "reconversion of England" would therefore be indefinitely postponed.

Third The republicans or revolutionists have secretly disliked Home Rule, which they have passionately and unreasonably called a "compromise with England." The Irish radicals are a faithful and hopeful class, willing to wait for the day of "England's difficulty," with a knife ready to cut the bond entirely. They fear that a temporizing policy may permanently lessen the patriotism of the people. However they may outwardly support the "open organizations," as they call them, they have firmly believed that the heroic principle of abiding, even through pain, for the supreme opportunity of entire independence, was the best course for Ireland.

None of these three influences actually opposes Home Rule, but all three restrain it. But outside these are the great common interests and common-sense of the nation, which are gradually and surely permeating the whole.

It is easily seen that the period of stagnation is about over. The country is rousing itself to a new effort, and the coming agitation will certainly be deeper and wider than the last. Next year will see a real national movement in Ireland. The conservative elements are moving to the popular rhythm. The Orangemen

of the North have caught the inspiration; the recent attacks by some of their body on Nationalist meetings being merely the last resource of the landlord party. The bishops and priests have firmer confidence in the political leaders than they had one or two years ago. And the most radical of the revolutionists are beginning to perceive that a man who is gagged and ironed, hand and foot, does not "compromise" with his oppressor by allowing him to remove the gag, and liberate one arm.

Radical or revolutionary spirit is usually only the result of inexperience in moral reform. To the natural eye the force of arms is the only means to overthrow injustice. The facility of violence is the measure of national as of individual development.

But where the word precedes the deed, reforms are complete and permanent. Premature action, however heroic, is as often regarded as a warning as an example. Irish revolutions cannot compare in beneficial results with Irish agitations; and the country is yet young in this higher order of reform.

Ten, or even five years ago, the "nationalist" who should advise Irishmen to take an interest in local elections, say for poor-law guardians, would be considered almost “a traitor." To-day, the people are a unit for securing even limited local government as a means to an end; and the constitutional exercise in this direction is affecting the political methods even of the revolutionists.

Besides the gain of this improved method of national action, there has been an elevation of tone, a greater calmness of expression in the Irish movement. This is due, almost wholly, to the Catholic hierarchy and clergy. Their critical attitude has steadied the movements of the people, discounted passion, compelled a conscientious consideration of the interests at stake-in a word, has raised the Irish national movement from social materialism, and made it Christian and legitimate.

It is a fair hope that the secret society will disappear from Ireland with the foreign rule that created it; and that the passionate earnestness which led many Irishmen to the proscribed organizations, will, in a self-governed Ireland, hold the same men faithful to the highest spiritual obligation. England is now holding up the Irish radical as a terror to the Catholic Church, just as, a few years ago, she held up the priest as a bugaboo to the Protestants and Orangemen.

There are two most remarkable features in the present Irish movement,—namely, patient, moral agitation, by a warlike and passionate people, and the unique influence of exiled millions on the affairs of the home country. These are illustrations of national and international progress. Both are based on moral force; but moral force has always a threat in reserve.

The Irish movement is not slow; it is rapid enough. The glacier is moving. Henceforth, its most precious element will be the guiding one. The main body of the nation has progressed with marvellous judgment and temperance, considering its opportunities and exasperations. The highest proof of intelligence is to win with a minority; and so far Ireland has carried every position on which she bent the national will. During the last five years she has taught the world a splendid lesson in moral agitation for reform.

THE ORIGIN OF CIVIL AUTHORITY.

[PART SECOND.-CONCLUSION.]

European Civilization, by Rev. J. Balmes. Baltimore, 1874.

Die Grundsätze der Sittlichkeit und des Rechtes, beleuchtet von Th. Meyer, S. J., Freiburg, Herder. 1868.

F Catholic philosophers trace back authority to God as to its

us a truth foreign from mankind. With the idea of governments endowed with a superhuman character even the heathen world was conversant. All the states of antiquity, the empires of the Egyptians, Babylonians, Assyrians, the early kingdoms of the Greeks, and the Romans were governed by rulers whose authority. was thought to have descended from the Deity; nay, no less common was this view of power among the nations than the belief in a Supreme Being. Nor do we meet here with mere heathen superstition. The universality of that conviction must needs rest on some truth, though darkened and distorted. Moreover, the ancient commonwealths were flourishing as long as the sacredness of law and authority was respected; but no sooner were governments looked on as quite earthly institutions than they began to give way to the violence of human passions. History proves this fact with regard to all states. Now, would it not be a very strange phenomenon, if human society should prosper when based on mere falsehood, and decline when its fundamental principles are sifted from error? Hence it is easily understood that the conviction concerning the divine origin of civil power, coeval with mankind, is older than Christianity, and not based on revelation alone. It

is also a natural truth striking with evidence human reason, and shining with full lustre on all that do not shut their eyes to the light.

Authority, indeed, manifests its true origin whenever its functions and characteristic properties are attentively reflected on. Thus its divine descent is at once clear and set beyond all doubt. This way we are now to follow in developing and demonstrating the Christian theory of civil power, after having, in a previous artielc, demonstrated the absurdity of the systems which derive government from man himself.

Authority, destined to govern civil society, must first be a power strong enough to overcome all egotistic resistance of the individuals, to withstand all onsets of lower passions, to defy all plots of the unruly. It must be steady and immovable in spite of all motions of our free will, aroused by the various propensities of human nature, and stand like a rock amidst all the waves tossed to and fro in the course of ages. Indestructible and unconquerable in itself, it must give firmness, permanence and unity to the state, notwithstanding our natural changefulness.

Authority must, secondly, be above each individual man and all mankind in general. For he who is invested with governmental power binds our wills and lays on them the necessity to follow a certain rule, in order thus to reduce us to unity and harmony in our actions. But what restricts our will is not only distinct from, but also superior to us. Distinct from us it must be, because, if left to ourselves and put under no restraint from outside, we are not bound, but enjoy our full freedom. Our own resolutions are no tie for us, since we may at any moment change them with as much right as we have formed them. Superior to us the power that binds us must be, because, if that which is to subject us to a certain order is not of a higher rank, we may resist it and undo its work. Neither can one man, therefore, of his own authority, bind another, since, so far as nature is concerned, we are all equal and free, nor can all mankind restrain our will, since the power of laying such a necessity on us cannot be constituted by adding the powerlessness of individuals.

Hence, it follows that, thirdly, authority lies originally in the Author of nature. For, as man is naturally free and enabled to pursue whatever conduces to his happiness, nobody can rightfully limit the sphere of our action and our liberty but He who has shaped human nature. Since He, by the title of authorship, holds exclusive dominion over us and is the absolute master of all our faculties, no other power may take from us what He has given us or modify what he constituted in us. Our very nature is, therefore, for us a charter of freedom, of exemption from any other rule than His.