MR. MATTHEW ARNOLD is a very eloquent writer and a very clever advocate. But he cannot reasonably be said to have achieved a signal success as champion of the claims of the Roman Catholic University in Ireland. He has set himself to prove that the Liberal party ought to support the claim. of Irish Catholics to have a sectarian University endowed and chartered by the State. What he has proved is that Liberals have hitherto given a wrong reason for not doing this. Further, he has suggested a method of organising a sectarian Roman Catholic University, and he confidently affirms that the Roman Catholic clergy would not refuse the conditions he proposes. But the institution he proposes to organise is not the institution the Catholic clergy have asked for; and if men's

con

duct in the past is any indication of their probable conduct in the future, the Catholic Bishops would most undoubtedly reject Mr Arnold's scheme, as they have rejected every other scheme that has hitherto been proposed for their consideration. Mr. Arnold is very severe upon Englishmen for offering Irish Roman Catholics, not what they say they want, but what Englishmen think they ought to want. But he fails to see that his scheme does precisely the thing he condemns others for doing; and he fails because he has evolved his University scheme by what he would probably call the free play of his own consciousness, while he

has wholly omitted to study the acts and words of the people for whom he proposes to legislate.

Mr. Arnold says he advocates "the public institution of Catholic education with the proper and necessary guarantees." (We give his own words, but the italics here are ours.) "Our newspapers always assume that Catholic Education must be under complete clerical control.' We are reminded that the Irish Bishops claimed from Lord Mayo the entire government of their Irish University, the right of veto on the appointment of professors, the right of dismissing professors. This would make the University simply a seminary with a State payment. But the State has no right, even if it had the wish, to abandon its duties towards a national University in this manner. The State in such a University is proctor for the nation. The appointment and dismissal of the professors belong to no corporation less large and public than the nation itself. And it is best in the hands of the nation, and not made over to any smaller and closer corporation like the clergy, however respectable. The professors should be nominated and removed, not by the bishops, but by a responsible Minister of State acting for the Irish nation itself. They should be Catholics, but he should choose them, exercising his choice as a judicious Catholic would be disposed to exercise it, who had to act in the name and for the benefit of the entire community. While the

bishops, if they have the appointment of professors in a Catholic University, will be prone to ask 'who will suit the bishops?' The community is interested in asking solely: Who is the best and most distinguished Catholic for the chair ?' In the interest of the Irish themselves, therefore, the professors in a publicly instituted Catholic University ought to be nominated by a Minister of State, acting under a public responsibility, and proctor for the Irish nation. Would Ireland reject a Catholic University offered with such a condition ?"

Mr. Arnold answers this question in one way: but those who judge the Roman Catholic hierarchy by their acts answer it in quite the opposite way. If there is any meaning in human language, what the Irish bishops want is precisely a University such as Mr. Arnold says the State cannot give them, will not give them, and ought not to give them. If conduct in the past affords any ground for anticipating conduct in the future, the Irish bishops would reject Mr. Arnold's "proper and necessary guarantees," as they have rejected every other proposal. For what is the guarantee that Mr. Arnold describes as proper and necessary? It is the appointment and removal of professors by a responsible Minister of State. Note here that Mr. Arnold only speaks of the appointment and removal of professors. Not a word about prescribing and controlling the course of studies, though, as we shall see presently, this is also a "proper and necessary guarantee," and a matter in which the hierarchy would be sure to claim a voice. But, to return to the responsible Minister of Catholic Instruction. Of course he would be a Catholic, though Mr. Arnold does not say so.

Now, how is this Minister to exercise the patronage with which he is vested? In subservience to the Bishops? Then the Bishops will tell him whom to appoint and whom to remove, and the University at once becomes a seminary paid by the State. Independently of the Bishops? Then the Bishops will at once declare that he has not their confidence, and will denounce the new University as they denounced the "godless Colleges. And to whom is the Minister of Catholic Instruction to be responsible? To Parliament ultimately, no doubt Parliament, by the way, being the body that habitually uses its powers in obedience to the Philistine middle class, whom Mr. Arnold is never tired of flouting. But Parliament is a slow machine, and the responsibility Mr. Arnold speaks of appears to be a different thing, and a more subtle thing than the liability to Parliamentary censure. What is to be the influence that is to guide the Minister in performing his duties? In England, or among Protestant Irishmen, that influence would be the sentiment of the educated laity. But the Catholic educated laity are a very small class; and their voice is drowned amid the clamours of the bishops, the priests, and the rabble. A Minister of Catholic Instruction, 66 responsible" to the educated Catholic laity, would be either a nobody or a thorn in the side of the hierarchy. For the educated Catholic laity is by no means subservient to episcopal dictation.

But, although Mr Arnold does not refer to it, there is another side to the duties of a Minister of Instruction, besides the appointing and removing of professors. The Minister would have to prescribe and control the course of study in the new Catholic University. And here, at least as much as in the

The bishops have here been spoken of as the leaders of agitation in this matter. It is by no means a layman's question. There can hardly be any argument more misleading (in certain hands it is simply dishonest) than that, because there are four millions of Catholics and only one million of Protestants, the Catholics are wronged in not having a separate university. It is not merely that the immense majority of these Catholics are labouring people who have no more to do with university education than the ploughmen of Wiltshire or the colliers of South Wales. It is not merely that among the classes who really do want university education, the Protestants are at least two to one compared with the Catholics. The true answer to the clerical cry in this matter is that the middle and upper classes of Catholics have as a matter of fact made use of the existing universities, in fair proportion to their numbers and their wants, and in spite of the threats and dictation of the bishop and the priesthood. Catholic gentry have nothing to do with the cry for a separate university. The cry is raised in the first instance by the priests (who have a separate university of their own) and is echoed by an ignorant and superstitious

electorate, who know and care nothing about university education for its own sake. Professor Cairnes and Professor Maguire (the latter of whom is a Catholic) years ago showed by the returns of the University of Dublin and the Queen's University that the number of Catholic students in these institutions was fully proportioned to the number of Catholic families that were at all likely to send sons to a university; and that the only result of setting up a denominational university would be to drain the existing institutions of Catholic students.

There is yet another side to this matter. Mr. Arnold, it is true, speaks with respect of Dublin University and the Queen's Colleges. But he is the only advocate of the Catholic claims who has treated this question without hinting more or less broadly that Dublin and the Queen's Universities ought to be made to pay for the new seminary. Some writers and speakers content themselves with significant allusions to "the rich endowments of Trinity College, wholly in the hands of Protestants." Others have boldly demanded a share in the spoil. Mr Arnold naturally looks to the money of the disendowed church for resources to carry out his scheme. If it be right or expedient to set up a Catholic University at all (which is a very open question), this money is as good as any other. But not one penny from the funds of Trinity College or the Queen's Colleges ought to be touched for such a purpose under any circumstances whatever.

This is the practical answer to Mr Arnold, and one of the true defences of the Liberal position. The university demanded by the Catholic bishops and their spokesmen is one that, on Mr. Arnold's own showing, the State ought not to set up. It would be "simply a

seminary with a State payment;" and "the State has no right, even if it had the wish, to abandon its duties towards a national university in this manner." The responsible minister to whom Mr. Arnold would assign the patronage, would either be the tool of the hierarchy, or would be distrusted and denounced

by the hierarchy. The "four millions of Catholic Irish," whom Mr. Arnold supposes to be clamouring for a Catholic University, are for the most part labouring people who, under no conceivable circumstances, could make use of a university. The handful of Catholic gentry and professional men do, as a matter of fact, use Dublin University and the Queen's University, and would use them more freely still if the priests left off worrying men and terrifying women with denunciations of heretical and godless colleges. For it is a fact, and a fact which Irish Catholic gentry freely admit, that the scruple of conscience which keeps Catholic young men from mixed colleges is in the mother's conscience, and is put there by the priest. Finally, what the priests want is not merely to set up their own university, but to discredit and cripple the existing universities, and to get as much of their money as they can.

No one of these ends would be served by Mr. Arnold's plan, and it would be safe to predict that, if it were offered to the hierarchy they would reject it, unless they were permitted to name the minister.

So much for the merely practical objection. Mr. Arnold once quoted a phrase of Mr. Frederic Harrison's, to the effect that "the man of culture is in politics one of the poorest mortals alive." In connection with this phrase, Mr. Arnold went on to disclaim any intention of meddling in practical politics. He would have acted wisely if he had adhered to this resolution.

But there is a deeper aspect of the question still. Mr. Arnold persists in writing of an Irish nation, which he assumes to consist of four million Catholics, including the directing ecclesiastics. Now, there is a plea to be put in against using this phrase, "Irish nation," at all. In the meantime, Mr. Arnold may be reminded that there are a million or so of non-Catholics, who are part of the "Irish nation." But in truth it may be affirmed that we are wrong in keeping up this phraseology, instead of using language which will remind us that there is one British nation, the governing body of the British Empire; that Englishmen, Irishmen, and Scotchmen, Episcopalians, Dissenters, and Roman Catholics, are all alike citizens of this one nation, who have not only equal rights, but equal duties. And it may be distinctly asserted that if the four millions of Irish Catholics, being a minority of the whole nation, asked genuinely and in good faith for a Catholic University; and if the majority of the governing body, having considered their claim, advisedly reject it, then it is the duty of the four millions to submit, unless and until they can persuade the majority. And if Mr. Arnold thinks that Mr. Parnell, or any other Irishman, is entitled to feel "rage and despair" because of this refusal, then Mr. Arnold is bound in logical consistency to advocate Home Rule, or even separation, if a sufficiently loud cry could be got up to demand these things. these things. The principle of every free constitution requires this loyal acceptance of the rule of the majority, and to talk of rage and despair is simply to suggest the disruption of the community. It is difficult for the imagination to measure the scorn with which Mr. Arnold would treat a Scotch Presbyterian or a Welsh Metho

dist cry for some sectarian privilege, which the rest of the nation united to deny them. Indeed, there is no need to exercise fancy. Mr. Arnold's own writings on the burial agitation are models of satire on a kindred grievance. And yet, if Mr. Arnold would only see it, every dead man must be buried; and if a dead man's friends are foolish enough to think that it matters with what ceremonies he is buried, they have a real grievance if they are denied the ceremonies they prefer. Whereas, of the four million Irish Catholics, perhaps four thousand at most may want to send sons to a university, and less than four hundred will decline, under priestly dictation, to send their sons to Trinity or Queen's. Where are the rage and despair here? Where can be seen the room for them? unless it be in the hearts of men of sense and culture, at finding a man of culture so devoid of sense as in this matter Mr. Arnold is.

It is

In truth, Mr. Arnold is led away, partly by love of the picturesque, but mainly by love of his own ingenuity. He thinks he has discovered an eirenicon, whereby all the contending sects of Christendom are to be reconciled. needless to inquire whether the very tiny "germ," which he supposes to lie at the root of Romanism and Protestantism alike, is a real germ or not. It suffices to say that neither Romanist nor Protestant would thank him for his discovery. Cardinal Cullen would make short work of him if he had the power; and though his old friend the Rev. W. Cassel, or Cattel, would perhaps stop short of burning him, he would assuredly denounce him as a perverter of Gospel truth. And inevitably so, since the essence of sectarianism is Aberglaube, to borrow Mr. Arnold's own word. Rome without Infalli

bility would be as impossible as Geneva without Calvinism. If Catholic and Protestant once get down to the " germ," the University question is not the only question that may be expected to solve itself.

But

It only remains to be said that Mr. Arnold's fears of alienating Irish Liberals seem to be as unfounded as his hopes of conciliating Ultramontane ecclesiastics. Το begin with, there are very few Irish Liberals in any true sense of the word. Irish Roman Catholic members of Parliament are pretty sure to be in opposition, whether Liberals or Conservatives be in power. As the Tories seem now in for a pretty long lease of office, the Irish Roman Catholic M.P. will mostly call himself a Liberal. he is not a real Liberal, and it may be doubted if a real Liberal could get a seat for any Irish constituency. The Irish party in Parliament may therefore be left out of account. No eirenicon, religious or political, will reconcile those whose raison d'être is to be irreconcilable. On the other hand, a real Liberal in politics, who should at the same time be a Roman Catholic in religion, must of logical necessity oppose concurrent endowment. As a Liberal he must support religious equality as a Catholic he must oppose endowment of error, i.e., of non-Catholic sects. He must, therefore, be content with non-endowment all round, and trust that the true Church will get on without it. Indeed, it is very hard to see how a man can firmly believe in the truth of any given creed and yet support concurrent endowment of other creeds, some of which at least must be full of falsehood. This argument, of course, does not touch Mr. Arnold, who seems to think that all creeds are false, but some are to be preferred because they have a prettier