Editor is now aware that he made a simply calumnious charge. And yet he does all that in him lies, in order that the readers of his Review may believe this unspeakably injurious accusation to be true, which he himself lies under the ignominy of having invented, and which he now knows to be utterly and absolutely false; and all this, for the sake of such poor controversial advantage, as may be derivable from the unscrupulous use of calumny and falsehood. If a Catholic had been detected in anything one-half so atrocious, when should we have heard the last about doing evil that good may come," "lying for the advantage of the Church," &c., &c.? Whereas, in this instance, we find the "Guardian," with all its zeal against the vice of lying, and its high-minded commonplaces about the excellence of veracity, is satisfied to praise the various contents of the party's Quarterly, without so much as a passing allusion to this unblushing mendacity. Nor, from that day to this, has any single member of the party expressed the faintest regret at the circumstance.

66

99 66

Mr. Gawthorn, for a purpose, with the intention of deceiving but one individual, and him only for a short time, makes a false statement indeed, but one which is injurious to no one; viz., that he, an unknown "Francis," is a convert to the Establishment from Dissent, and is jealous for the purity of the said Establishment's Protestantism. Immediately, from every Catholic quarter, are heard disclaimers; and before a week passes, the culprit himself confesses his fault, and begs forgiveness. On the other side it is not some obscure partizan, but the party's principal theological organ, which utters the base falsehood; its tendency is to injure most deeply, and for an indefinite period, the person against whom it is directed, and to disseminate a most foul libel against him and his Church. But here no voice of disclaimer is forthwith heard; rather the lie is sped on its way by the assenting silence of the whole number. And yet, (will it be believed?) it is one of this silently assenting party, who has the effrontery to bring against Rome the charge of "undermining that simple, natural love of truth, and fear of falsehood, which the human heart, when left to itself, confesses." "Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thy own eye, and then shalt thou see to cast the mote out of thy brother's eye."

That "Rome has a theory on the subject of lying," is

most certain; and upon that theory such proceedings as the above, are immoral and discreditable. Will the writer in the "Guardian" put forth any counter-theory on which they are otherwise? or, as he prefers, (God save the mark!)" instinctive and primâ facie sentiments," to a systematic theory, will he produce the persons to whose "instinctive and primâ facie sentiments" such proceedings are otherwise than odious? If he does so, we have only to express our intention of avoiding the company of such persons, as we should of men infected with the plague.

But we must not conclude without recording the Chronicle's" comment on Mr. Gawthorn; which, in time to come, may really be a valuable fact, as shewing posterity, in an amusing shape, how Catholics are judged, in the 19th century, for offences which Protestants so readily, and so unblamed, commit. The passage is almost incredible, but its genuineness is undoubted.

We

"As to this miserable creature, Gawthorn, it is a waste of words to describe his conduct in the transaction. A more base and revolting fraud-a more complete negation of every moral principle, the lie being varied with every circumstance of degrading hypocrisy it were impossible to conceive. The wildest fiction that ever attributed any conceivable violation of truth and decency to the pattern-monster, which is nicknamed a Jesuit, never excogitated anything half so detestable as this fact, which is now before us—a fact which has serious bearings far wider than the detection of Gawthorn. shall not be urged by our indignation to accuse the Roman Catholic Church of the vice which has been displayed by its proselyte; but there is no denying that a systematic disregard of truth is the popular charge against a whole religious system, and this is a case which must go far, unless disavowed, towards accrediting and enforcing the popular estimate. This is no theory of the economy, no mere instance of the disciplina arcani, no esoteric doctrine from Escobar, but a solid, substantial fact, performed here, in this living England, in the month of July last past. The perpetrator of this incredible wickedness," &c., &c.

ART. X.-Letter to His Grace the Archbishop of Dublin, on the subject of the Ecclesiastical Titles Act, and the Charge addressed to the Clergy of Dublin in 1851. By LORD MONTEAGLE. Dublin, Hodges and Smith.

THE

HE noble Peer, whose pamphlet lies before us, has come boldly forward, to vindicate those generous views which he openly asserted in his seat in Parliament. But not only by his speeches, but still more by the splendid, manly, and noble-hearted protests, which he has indelibly impressed on the Journals of the House, has Lord Monteagle gained the respect and gratitude of every Catholic. He now undertakes to answer Dr. Whateley's Charge, in which the exclusion of Ireland from the Ecclesiastical Titles Act, proposed by Lord M., was pronounced to be an injustice. We fully award to the temporal Peer the victory over the so-called spiritual; for nothing can be clearer to any ordinary mind, than the injustice of visiting on the Irish Episcopate, an imaginary aggression in England.

But we hardly dare repine at this one additional injustice, in the accumulated mass of iniquity, of which that legislative measure is made up. Indeed, this one clear injustice has served, perhaps more than any other, to show in its true light the immoral character of the recent penal Act. Some readers may be startled by this strong word: but we hesitate not to say, that, however high its sanction, the late measure is unbased on any sound moral principles, or rather in fact contradicts them. And moreover we will boldly assert, that whatever may be the mischiefs of the Act, none is comparable to the manner, in which it must unhinge, in very many minds, respect for law, and for those who frame it.

We can hardly conceive a more fatal severance, than that between legislation and moral principles, in the mind of a people. By a great many enactments, a certain small proportion of persons may consider themselves aggrieved. Not only where crime is punished will the delinquent whom the law strikes murmur in secret, but even in very innocent provisions, hardship may be inflicted.

which provokes complaints. A turnpike act may be exceedingly disagreeable to those who travel on a road; and provoke Rebecca and her followers, to come forth by moonlight, and overthrow the obnoxious barriers. But in all this, passion and interest have the chief influence; and none of the discontented parties protests or disobeys, upon moral principles, believed by him to be impugned or violated by the law. It would require a fanatic to find God's law assailed by any ordinary Act of Parliament.

But it is a very different thing, when a law is passed, which a very considerable portion of the population considers unjust, wicked, contrary to the law of God, to the principle of religion, to the rights of conscience. No one can doubt that authority is safest, and society best founded, when the preacher can boldly inculcate obedience to law, and the moralist can treat of such obedience as a duty. But what can be more dangerous, than a clash and collision between obedience and conscience, and a conviction that disobedience alone can satisfy the claims of this inward monitor? And if further, this is not the feeling of a confined or peculiar class, guided by a common interest, as its impulse, but is the solemn determination of a body, that has no bond but one of principle, which contains within it every sphere and state of society, peerage, nobility, gentry, professions, trades, labour, and pauperism; with ecclesiastics of every grade in the Church;-then indeed it must be acknowledged, that it has been a hazardous cast, in the lottery of party-legislation, which, to gain a triumph, has risked every reverential feeling, on the part of such a body, for the deliberate decisions of authority.

A law passed in a constitutional state is supposed to be the determination of the people. Its sovereignty speaks and acts; and as Ireland, no less than England, forms part of the Empire, Ireland is considered, in legal and conventional parlance, concurrent in the "Ecclesiastical Titles Act." Now that this is a fiction, an untruth, who can doubt? Ireland protests energetically against it: she rejects, repudiates, spurns, hates and abhors it. It is law against Ireland's will, because against her holiest feelings, because it outrages what she loves best. Nor is this all. The people of Ireland consider it in direct opposition to a great principle, which can only be asserted by a non-observance of the law. For the first time in our generation, the legislature sends to that island an Act, which disintegrates,

in the mind of every Catholic, that is nearly all its population, the generally admitted, combination between the law and duty. They are put into antagonism; and the question is now asked by millions: "which must I obey? for I cannot by one act obey both." And let it be observed, that the question comes home not to the uneducated, nor the ignorant, nor the dissolute, nor the passionate, nor the hasty, nor the negligent; but to the learned, the wise, the moral, the honest, the calm, the religious. And all these answer, that to say, their country is a party to such a law, would be a calumny, a lie, a contradiction to all that their souls profess. They must then look on it as a legislation forced upon them, contrary to the spirit of the constitution, by a party stronger than themselves, millions though they be.

Moreover, it is assumed, as a principle of all wise legislation, that a law must be for the general benefit-all ought to be partakers in its blessings. What then must be said of the wisdom or morality of a law, which millions, that have a right to the advantages of all national measures, agree in considering a curse, an injury, and an abomination? It must shake all confidence in the principles which guide the imperial legislature; seeing how reckless it is of the moral feelings of vast multitudes, equally entitled to protection and consideration.

The result has been what might have been expected. Besides the principal population of Ireland, a great body in England, and still more in our colonies, concurs in believing that the greater part of last session of parliament was spent in passing a wicked and immoral law, one contrary to their recognized religious principles, which puts them in the dilemma between obeying God or man, and which sets their conscience against the exercise of their habitual obedience to law. Nor is this a chance, an accident, the results of a sinister influence. It was foreseen; no one in his senses could have doubted, that government knew it perfectly; otherwise they must have thought the whole body of Catholics an unprincipled set. But it is clear they foresaw it. In the closing speeches of the House of Lords, the only attempt made to soothe the feelings of outraged conscience, consisted in the insinuation that the law would not be found practically oppressive, would not interfere with religious rights. This was a recognition of the theoretical grievance; it was only a further immorality.