and fumbles after a spiritual authority beyond the bishops and behind the Reformationthe Ritualists plunged into their grand mistake. Moderate High Churchmen joined forces with the most advanced to fling the whole Catholic party between the Protestant members of the Church and its direct subverters, for whom "comprehension" seemed to be demanded

too.

This was not a way to reconcile Church Protestants to the dubious ritual of Church Catholics, or to allay fears that were stronger when there was less cause for them. The unconsidered laity were roused; the politics of Protestantismwhich will not allow of sacerdotal domination - revived in full force; and before Parliament met the whole Church, the whole country it might be said, was arrayed into two hostile camps, between which the last words of challenge and defiance had passed. The debate that was raised in the House of Commons by Mr Samuel Smith had little significance in itself. Legislative interference - at any rate at this point is as undesired as undesirable. Yet the debate had its use in bringing out more clearly the breadth and depth of the division between the two parties in the Anglican Church, henceforth to be named the Catholic party and the Protestant party by the choice of each. How they really stand to one another and to the State could not be known too soon;

hold themselves apart, contemptuous of Protestantism and rejecting State authority. There is even some doubt as to whether the more pronounced Church Catholics will accept the authority of the bishops if the right to preach certain doctrine or to engender certain ideas is by them denied. It is conceivable that the bishops will stand by the supremacy of the Queen-it is certain that many Church Catholics will continue to deny it; refusing obedience to the doctrinal interpretations of the Privy Council, whether obeyed by their bishops or not. The bishops are alowed to be capable of forming a spiritual court, and therefore one that is worthy of respect; but yet, to judge by what we now read and hear, there is some doctrine, and some that Church Protestants most abhor, so infixed in the Catholic mind

as

the true doctrine of the Church that the bishops will in vain forbid its inculcation. Yet now that it is arraigned it must be condemned: upon that the awakened Protestantism of the country which is not only a religion, but (may it ever be remembered !) Protestant for social and political reasons of profound importance - will insist. Condemnation may be followed by secession, which, though sad, would at any rate be an honest movement, and leave more honesty in the place of its departure. If not followed by secession, ejection must ensue: ejection from the Church of all who

tise its formularies and its faith.

Sir William Harcourt and Mr Balfour agree that for this unpleasant but necessary business no new Parliamentary legislation is needed. There is authority enough for the purpose where it is most respected by the reactionists to sacerdotalism; and there is also a general agreement, I think, that the bishops propose to use this power in a wise if much-belated way. The Archbishop of Canterbury, whose speech in the House of Lords the other day was most becoming to the subject and himself, rightly interprets the feeling of the laity, acknowledging that the Church is not its priests alone.

In

Church of Rome." It is. But "mass" is a word of lawful use, while many things in the extreme Anglo-Catholic ritual are unlawful-intentional violations of law; and at the same time, alone and in combination, a yet more direct and meaning "introduction to the Roman Church." They prepare the ground, as the common saying is; "accustoming the people" (it is Dr Temple who speaks now) "to a ritual like that which they would find in the Church of Rome." Now, although it is true that we of the laity are far less concerned with ceremonial than with doctrine, we like not these unlawful clearings of the ground. Yet it will be enough for contentment if the archbishops, in working out their plan of judicial intervention, deal straitly with the more defiant offenders and such as are made outlaws by their own contumacy. We shall be satisfied if further they remember, what has evidently been a frequent thought with them, that when once the conflict begins there can be no turning back in the middle of it; and if also they bear this in mind whenever they sit in judgment. In the Reformed Church of England, a spiritual court, dealing with the Romanising sappers of the Church by spiritual argument alone, may represent the priesthood very well, but not very well the laity. This is because Protestantism is not only a religion, but, in a very high sense, a polity. As to that, however, we must perforce be silent. We may be Protestant if we please on religious grounds, Protestant on social grounds, but we may not say why. To do that would be insulting to Roman Catholics, as Mr W. Redmond fiercely reminded Mr Samuel Smith in the House of Commons debate, careful as the poor man had been and melting as were his apologies for referring to the confessional. And indeed it is better not to say why, though better above all things never to forget: for good and bad influences on citizenship keep their character, and are to-day what they were in the time of Elizabeth. But though we cannot vindicate our Protestant preferences without offence, and will not do so for fear of offending, the Spiritual Court which is about to be set up will know why we cherish certain schoolpolicies, hearth - policies, and what our theories are as to freedom of mind and the making of men. And these things the Spiritual Court will be good enough not to forget amid its jangling interpretings of King Edward the Sixth's prayer-book.

The Prince Consort said of our system of Government by Cabinet, that it worked as a check to the personal ambition of individual Ministers. The ambition he had in mind is unknown in England, though it is true that on a certain occasion the government of the country was all but snatched out of the Queen's hands. The explanation of that case is, how

ever, that the offending Minister knew not what he did, being in a state of exaltation unusually high. Yet this saying of the Prince Consort's was true in a sense of considerable importance. The solidarity of the Cabinet, its joint and several responsibility, the presentation to the world of its deeds and plans as the plans and deeds of a committee and of no individual, has many great conveniences, of which one is that Ministers are forbidden to make play in the country on their own account: nothing must be done to compromise, to forestall, to overpass their colleagues. Till lately this wholesome rule has been scrupulously observed. Lately, however, the whole system of government in England has been giving way, just as the Prince above-named foresaw when nothing in the country appeared more fixed and stable than its political machinery. Seemingly worn, it weakens in various ways, but mainly in the sinking of the authority of the House of Commons, and the growing Ministerial habit of going past the House for direct communication with the people. A democratic change, of course, but yet an obvious change for the worse; and a break in the solidarity of Cabinet Government would be a very natural result of it.

a

out

But are there any signs of such break? There are, though, so far, none of a particularly formidable character. Something of the kind appeared when, at a dark and anxious time, Mr Chamberlain spoke against an isolation policy and called for a fighting alliance with some great military power. Other though less striking instances will be remembered; none of which, however, prepared the world political for Mr Balfour's letter advocating the institution by the State of Roman Catholic universities in Ireland.

When every other man in the Cabinet is hanged for overindulgence in personal ambition we may begin to suspect Mr Balfour of the weakness. The present belief about him on that score is that he would sooner retire to Whittinghame, and remain there, than play the pushful man in politics even for a day. But that makes the publication of his letter the more remarkable; reducing the explanation of it to a belief that it was a right and a politic thing to do. How many of his friends share that belief, either upon the hypothesis that his colleagues were agreed with him or that they were not? In the one case the presumption must be that the Cabinet, being willing after due consideration to provide Ireland with Roman Catholic universities, but at the same time doubting the popularity of such a scheme, commissioned one of their number to fly the proposal through the press as a suggestion of his own. When

fully stated, that is the first hypothesis, and glaringly impossible. It is so impossible an innovation that it cannot be made to look more so, even by the unlikelihood that no member of the Government

could see the mistake of launching a scheme of that character in the midst of a furious Protestant agitation. The other supposition must be the right one; but though in some respects preferable, it is almost as hard to reconcile with the usual and expected. By a positive and even vehement expression of opinion, addressed to the country on a notoriously difficult and inflammatory question, a leading member of the Government forces his colleagues into a position which some of them think wrong, and all may find extremely awkward. Even they say so who wish well to Mr Balfour's proposal, which allows me the satisfaction of speaking farther in language not my own. is only by carrying out this proposal, says the 'Spectator,' "that the Government can now avoid serious trouble within its own body.

It

"In the strongest possible language Mr Balfour has in effect told his con

stituents that an imperative duty rests upon those who are true Unionists and true Protestants to deal with the claims of the Irish Roman Catholics in regard to Irish university education." But supposing that the Government "cannot in the end agree to deal with the problem, both Mr Balfour and the Cabinet will be placed in a terribly false position. Mr Balfour's exercise of the right of free speech on Catholic education must look like, and act as, an indictment of the. Cabinet as bad Unionists. A certain situation has been created by his letter and his Manchester speeches. He may have been rash; he may even have acted without due consideration for his colleagues; all we know is that by his recent action he has made it imperative for the Cabinet to deal with the problem." "It is only by placing

...

Irish university education on a sound basis, and satisfying the demands of the majority of the Irish population, that the Government can now avoid

serious trouble within its own body."

In short, the Government must either yield to "the situation created by Mr Balfour's letter " or break up.

When the question comes on for debate, it might be asked how it is that while the Roman Catholic community is spending vast sums of money in building cathedrals, chapels, conventual institutions, and the like in all the three kingdoms, it never seems to think of providing for itself the university that is so much wanted. The answer is, perhaps, that that is properly the business of the State. However, we are not now considering the intrinsic merits of Mr Balfour's plan. I have nothing to say about it, good or bad. Our present concern is with a totally different matter, and not a less important one, I think, if we have here another example of what is to be expected of ministerial Government in future. Were it not supplied by Mr Balfour, leader of the House of Commons, circumspect, considerate, no demagogue, no mere climbing politician, or if he were the first and only practitioner in this new line, little might be thought of it. But he is not the first. What he does he does after witnessing, and presumably pondering, similar performances; and being what he is, that he should follow suit in a manner so deliberate and in a matter so vexed, looks too much like a break-up of the old order in Cabinet government.

To what effect may be read in the words quoted above, which are of general as well as particular application. They show the natural working of the Cabinet system in dissolution, or (to speak in milder phrase) when dropping into habits of " greater freedom and less responsibility." The 'Spectator's' forecast of consequences on the present occasion may turn out to be exaggerated; but if so, it will be by good luck, for none of those consequences are forbidden by the nature of the case. It is entirely reasonable to expect them; and at another time, and by a less scrupulous Minister, they may be not merely risked but intended and ensured.

"DEAR MR LOOKER-ON, This is to inform you, who may have commands for me, that I too came to town for the meeting of Parliament.

"The 'something in the atmosphere,' which in most places where men are assembled tells of any general predominant thought or emotion, is stronger in the House of Commons than anywhere else. You must have felt this. How the common feeling gets into the atmosphere, or how to explain the wordless communication of it to the stranger in the gallery, is beyond us, I suppose. But so it is. In a full House, and on occasions when attention is concentrated on a matter of extraordinary interest, the stranger is almost as conscious of the drift and shift of feeling