to regard the figure-head of a vessel as the seat of its motive power.

A kindred opinion is prevalent (though not so openly expressed) that the presence of priests on platforms and at conventions is to be explained by their desire to seek favour with those upon whom they depend for support. Persons who hold this view will assert that a system of State endowment for the clergy would have changed the course of Irish politics, and, in particular, would have made the priesthood official guardians of the status quo, and silent or conservative on the agrarian question. The suggestion is that in political and social issues the desire to please their flocks, and to earn their gratitude and support, is the dominant motive with the clergy, and that if paid by the State, they would take little or no interest in these burning topics. Such was the view expressed by Nassau Senior, by Archbishop Whately, and by many eminent statesmen who from Pitt onwards have supported the principle of concurrent endowment. This theory, in its crudest form, is thus expressed in the words of Archbishop Whately: A priest solely dependent on his 'flock is in fact retained by them to give the sanction of ' religion to the conduct, whatever it may be, which the 'majority choose to adopt.'* Sir George Cornewall Lewis, in his well-known work on Irish Disturbances, written at a time when the disestablishment and disendowment of the Irish Church seemed impossible, did not take this extreme view, but nevertheless he was a strong supporter of concurrent endowment, as an act of political justice, and as tending to make the clergy more independent.

What the precise effect of applying the levelling-up' principle would be must necessarily remain a matter of speculation; but we may here give some reasons for holding that the advocates of that principle have not, perhaps, fully examined the working of the voluntary system in Ireland, and the exact relations between the Catholic clergy and their parishioners. A circumstance of all importance in this matter is often overlooked: that the first care of the Irish Catholic clergy is for the spiritual condition, the faith, and morals of their parishioners. There is no impartial observer but will admit this; and the sufferings and sacrifices of the clergy in the past bear witness to the fact that, generally, material interests do not count in the balance, where this great end of their calling is to be obtained. Here, then, is

* Nassau Senior, Journals and Conversations,' vol. ii.

sufficient motive for a desire to have the goodwill and sympathy of their flocks, without suggesting a cause based on worldly interests. It is equally true that the regard of the peasant for the priest is due to esteem for a sacred calling, not for individual merits; to respect for his cloth, rather than his personality. Nothing else will account for the way in which for centuries, and through every vicissitude, a nation of poor peasants has supported the clergy, often at the expense of the necessaries of life. This was done as freely in penal times, and under a bureaucratic Government, as when the franchise and the ballot gave the masses a voice in legislation. No theory of personal benefit will explain the voluntary exertions and contributions of clergy and laity towards building and rebuilding churches, during the last century. Moreover, although many behests of the moral law are extremely distasteful to the natural man, the clergy are in no way deterred from rigorously preaching them to those upon whom their livelihood depends. There would seem, indeed, à priori, some exaggeration in attributing purely material interests as a guiding motive for a celibate body, with few temptations to extravagance or luxury, who are forbidden to amass wealth, or to leave their savings to their kindred. On the whole, therefore, the theory that there is anything, in the voluntary system, in the nature of a purchase of worldly services does not explain, and is inconsistent with, well-established facts.

The history of the relations between the clergy and the laity bears out the view we are contending for. Whilst the voluntary system has been constant, the influence and interference of the clergy in worldly affairs has varied considerably. In the early days of Continental training they appear to have taken little part in political movements. Edmund Burke declared in 1792 that the Catholic clergy had at no time, within his observation, much influence over the people. The Rebellion came to a head in spite of them, and the conspicuous part played by a few priests on the side of the insurgents should not blind us to the fact (as testified by Cornwallis and others) that the vast majority were strongly opposed to violent and revolutionary methods.* The Catholic Association was founded and organised by laymen, and the pages of Wyse, the historian of the Association, show that it was not until the time of O'Connell that the clergy appeared conspicuously in the political arena.

6

* See Lecky, History,' vol. vi. p. 481; Healy, pp. 239-241.

VOL. OXCIJI. NO. CCCXCVI.

H H

Even then, as Mr. Lecky points out, though O'Connell stimulated their action, and governed by their means, he 'was invariably the director of their policy.'*

So in the case of the Whiteboy, Ribbon, and Fenian movements, such success as these uprisings had, was in spite of the strong opposition of the clergy, who in like manner held aloof from the New Ireland movement of Davis and Smith O'Brien. In fact, the clergy have, on the whole, taken little part in furthering political movements, other than the agrarian agitation, and questions where their religion was concerned, such as emancipation and denominational education.

Upon the land question the great majority of those who aspire to the priesthood, being sons or relations of tenantfarmers, are, so to speak, born and bred with fixed opinions. Whether there was a voluntary system or not, a body of youths of one class, associating together for seven or eight years, receiving the training we have described, untravelled, and unversed in political economy, would inevitably have their early opinions and prejudices strengthened and confirmed. Launched into a country curacy after such training and associations, with no society except that of his brotherpriests, a Maynooth student would not require the stimulus of a desire to retain his income undiminished, to make him adhere to his early opinions on the land question. It is most improbable, on the other hand, that a small pittance from Government would change his views. State endowment might have prevented some extravagant and incautious utterances, especially in high places; but the bulk of the clergy would have been still ready with support and sympathy for their friends and kinsmen.

We now see from experience that the founding of Maynooth, and its maintenance for seventy years out of State funds, did not change the native spirit of its staff or scholars. Is it any more likely that the experiment of a State pension would incline the clergy to side with landlords, against their own class ?

It is remarkable, that in forecasting the effect of educating the Irish clergy at home instead of abroad Wolfe Tone diagnosed the probable result more accurately than either Burke, or Grattan, or Cornwallis. Tone foresaw that a college in Ireland would become strongly democratic and

Leaders of Public Opinion, p. 303; Wyse, History of the Catholic Association,' vol. i. pp. 54-62.

national, and desired its establishment for that reason. Burke feared the contagion of the French extremists, and perhaps expected too much from political gratitude; at any rate, another half-century of experience might have made him deplore the destruction of his conservative ideals, with Louvain and Salamanca.*

If it were necessary to pursue this subject further, foreign examples might be cited to show that a State endowment does little or nothing to diminish the strength of the bond between clergy and laity, and does not induce the priesthood to become Government partisans. Neither in Germany, nor Italy, nor France have the clergy been conspicuous supporters of Governments or their measures; nor has the threat of curtailing or stopping of funds had any appreciable effect in changing their opinions or utterances. In Germany we have seen a State-paid clergy help to create and keep on foot the great parliamentary party of the Centre, whose first principle was the protection of their religious interests, and watchful independence of the Government.

Whilst we have thus far combated a commonly expressed opinion, that by making the Catholic clergy paid officials of the State, thorny Irish problems would have been solved, we do not shut our eyes to the fact that any such solution is practically impossible since the Disestablishment and Disendowment of the Irish Church. Probably the intended recipients would not now accept a State subsidy under any conditions, certainly not under terms which involved appointment or veto by the State. The declarations of the Irish bishops against receiving payment from the State have been so unequivocal and so often made, that the matter is out of the sphere of practical politics.†

It is now more profitable to consider whether the drawbacks and deficiencies of the clerical educational system can be remedied by State aid. If we are right in concluding that the present régime is not only injurious to the clergy themselves, but is reflected in the habits, leanings, and mode of life of the whole population, reform would appear to be a national public service.

It was not worth while founding and maintaining an

* Lecky, History,' vol. vii. p. 121; Wolfe Tone, 'Memoirs,' vol. i. pp. 173, 195.

See some of these declarations quoted in 'Letters and Writings of Cardinal Cullen,' edited by Dr. Moran, vol. iii. p. 85.

ecclesiastical seminary out of public funds if the public objects are not attained. The power for good of a cultured and instructed clergy is not less now than in the days of Camden and Pitt. Moreover, the arrangement made at the time of Disestablishment was in fact (however ingeniously cloaked) an endowment of Maynooth out of public funds. In spite of all the argumentative subtleties used in the 1869 debates, there is no doubt that a gift to Maynooth by the State out of the Irish Church property was in substance equivalent to a direct State endowment. Maynooth is publicly subsidised now precisely in the same way as the Irish Agricultural Department and the Intermediate Education Commissioners. All the considerations urged with such eloquence by Lord Macaulay and Archbishop Whately in 1845 have the same, if not greater, force at the present time. The principle has been admitted and acted on, and if, therefore, an increased staff of professors, provision for private tuition, libraries, scientific apparatus, and other instructional equipment, are necessary to make the educational course at Maynooth liberal and effective, no revival of the cry of religious endowment ought to prevent the use of public funds for the purpose. Probably nothing more is needed than a restoration of the financial position before 1869. By Mr. Gladstone's ingenious operations the income of Maynooth was thenceforth practically reduced by one-half, with the consent, strange to say, of the Irish members. If the income before Disestablishment-namely, 26,000l.were assured to Maynooth, Parliament could exercise some general control in seeing that some of the deficiencies were removed.*

If, however, the claim of Catholics for a separate university of their own be admitted by Parliament, it may be that the best policy would be to make provision for the higher and more liberal education of the clergy (or some of them) in a separate college, or house of residence, attached to such a university. Apart from other obvious advantages, there would be the benefit of the friendly rivalry and companionship of lay students; and any plan must be welcome which would reduce Maynooth from its present unwieldy dimensions. Numbers may stimulate internal competition;

There was considerable opposition to the abolition or reduction of the Maynooth grant in 1869; Sir Stafford Northcote described the transaction as 'pandering to the prejudices of the English Voluntaries, and a subserving of the interests of the Treasury.'