or appearing to make, common cause in politics with the radical party throughout Europe, from which young enthu siasts hoped so much, both for society and the church, have pretty well developed themselves during the last two years, and are now apparent to all who have eyes, or who are not struck with judicial blindness. The mad attempt, it is now seen and admitted, must eventuate, as far as possible, in the destruction of both church and state.

We claim no credit for having foreseen and warned our readers of this. When a liberal, a radical, we had studied the subject, and had regarded the policy recommended by the neo-Catholics, as they were called, as highly favorable to the views we then held, and as hostile to all in church and state to which we were ourselves opposed; it was not difficult for us, when we had ceased to belong to the "movement," and had, through the mercy of God, been admitted into the church, to see that it was directly hostile to every thing we must, as a Catholic, uphold as dear and sacred. We had no new discovery to make, no new investigations to go through; we had only to oppose as a Catholic what we had approved as hostile to Catholicity when we were ourselves hostile to it; we had no new judgment to form, for the judgment we had from the first formed was its condemnation in the view of every intelligent Catholic. We need not say that events have justified our judgment, nor adduce the acknowledgments so frankly made by the illustrious leader of the Catholic political party in France, as our answer to those mistaken, but no doubt well-meaning, friends who have abused us for it. This is no time for boasting or for recrimination. Our duty as Catholics, here and elsewhere, is to break loose from any connection we may have had with radicals, and parties animated by a Jacobinical, insurrectionary, or socialistic spirit, to return to the maxims of a sound political science, and to labor to reconstruct and consolidate social order. We must call things by their right names, and bestow our sympathy, not on rebel chiefs and insurrectionary bodies, but on men of loyal hearts and firm principles, who stand, in these trying times, by authority, and are ready at any sacrifice to save society from complete shipwreck. We must look upon the praise of such journals as the New York Tribune and the Boston Chronotype as a deep disgrace.

We confess that we were obliged to draw upon our Catholic faith for relief, when we heard the whole Protestant, in

fidel, and socialistic world applauding Pius IX. to the echo, -when we saw a Horace Greeley reporting, and a New York sympathy meeting, approved by a William H. Seward and a Ben. Franklin Butler, adopting, an address to the "venerable Father" of Christendom,- when we found multitudes of the faithful half frantic with joy at the supposed popularity of the head of their church with the enemies of God and man; and we even breathed freer when the mob took possession of the Eternal City, and the Holy Father sought an asylum at Gaeta. Those shouts of "Long live Pius IX.!" from infidel throats, would, if any thing could, shake a Catholic's faith in the promises of our Lord to Peter. We must be traitors to God and criminals to society in order to command the sincere applause of our age; and whenever we find ourselves commended by any of the popular organs of the day, we should retire and make our examen of conscience, and ask, with fear and trembling, "O Lord, what iniquity hath thy servant committed, that the wicked praise him?" Redress of grievances, the melioration of society, and the advancement of civilization, are to be effected, if at all, through government, not by overthrowing it and resolving society into chaos. The nonsense vented about "the people," "popular governments," "democracies," ""the republic democratic and social," we shall do well to despise, and to remember that our first duty is "to fear God and honor the king," that is, the prince, the sovereign authority of the state. We shall do well to remember, that allegiance is a duty, and disobedience-except when the prince commands what is contrary to God's law-is criminal; that loyalty is a virtue, and rebellion a crime punishable by all laws, human and divine. Wherever you see a party at war with the government, hold them for traitors, rebels, deserving your deepest execration, till you have clear and indubitable evidence to the contrary. Give no ear to the modern blasphemous absurdities of "the sacred right of insurrection," an absurdity in keeping with the character of Sir Charles Grandison Cromwell La Fayette, as Carlyle not inaptly calls him, with whom, so far as we are informed, it originated, but which every loyal citizen and honest man hears with horror and disgust.

What will be the result of the present state of things in France we have no means of determining. We believe France is pretty thoroughly aroused to the dangers of redrepublicanism, or socialism, and we do not think that her

principal danger just now is to be apprehended from that quarter. Judging from such data as we have before us, we should say that her present danger is from the party represented by such men as De Tocqueville, the present minister for foreign affairs. These men are destitute of all true statesmanship; they are mere theorists, who have not the sense to perceive that a policy that might be admissible when the question is the gradual restriction of an authority too unlimited for liberty, must be wholly misplaced when the question is the reconstruction of power and the reëstablishment of order. They are not exactly socialists; they are not exactly democrats; they reject and accept a little of all parties, and pass for moderate, judicious men; but being men without any consistent principles of their own, men of compromise, neither exactly one thing nor another, and appealing to no great and commanding principle in the national mind or heart, they cannot but prove themselves utterly impotent to found a strong and stable government, such as France now needs.

We know not when we have read any thing which more disgusted us than the brief report which has appeared in the papers of De Tocqueville's speech in the great debate in the assembly on the affairs of Rome. The intervention of France in those affairs, if undertaken in good faith for the purpose of rescuing the Roman people from the oppression of the foreign rabble, miscreants, and vagabonds calling themselves the Roman republic, to put an end to the sacrilege that was daily committed, and to restore the Holy Father to the exercise of his temporal sovereignty, was noble and generous, honorable to her government, and not undeserv ing the gratitude of Christendom; but if undertaken merely for the purpose of establishing French influence in Italy, and of imposing restraints on an independent sovereign, as the minister asserts, it was mean, contemptible, wholly unjustifiable, and utterly disgraceful to France and her extemporary rulers. We wish to believe the French government was governed by the more honorable motives, and we would fain hope that the explanation of the minister will turn out to be as false as the motives it implies are unjust and contemptible. But even if so, it proves the weakness, the wickedness, and the blunder of the minister. France is Catholic; let men say what they will, the great majority of her people are Catholic; and no government, not administered in accordance with Catholic principles, can hope to

hold upon

her

restore her internal peace, or to take a strong affections. There are but two principles in French society, -the Catholic principle and the socialistic,-and no government can live, and perform the proper functions of government, that does not make its election, and conform strictly to the one or the other of these. The French government must be Catholic or socialist. Socialist it cannot be, for socialism is incompatible even with the existence of human society. It must, then, be Catholic; and if so frankly, if it take care to do nothing to wound the Catholic conscience, and make its appeal boldly to the Catholic principle, it will have but little difficulty, and may easily correct the defects of its present constitution, and secure the blessings of liberty and internal peace.

But men of the De Tocqueville stamp-who in politics are what Anglicans are in religion; who have no decided religious belief or principle, but up to a certain extent pretend to patronize all religions; who are really infidels at heart, without the energy to avow it-are wholly unequal to the courage and wisdom of adopting that which is not, in fact, more injurious and offensive to Catholics than direct and open opposition. Their wisdom consists in attempting to hold the balance even between them and socialists, the maddest, or rather the silliest, policy imaginable. In attempting this policy they will destroy the republic, for it will leave them without a party. It is the policy to madden the socialists, and to disgust and alienate the Catholics, without whose cordial support no government in France can stand.

If Louis Napoleon himself approves the policy of the De Tocqueville portion of his ministry, he is far less of a statesman than we have supposed him, than we have been anxious to believe him. Fine speeches in praise of religion which mean nothing, and acts positively injurious to it, will not regenerate France. The government that admits the necessity of religion and morality, as the basis of social order, betrays its folly no less than its infidelity, if it begins by claiming authority over religion, instead of setting an example of submission to it. We can assure Prince Louis Napoleon, that the former liberal opposition will prove as impotent for good to France as the now defunct Nationals, who came into power with the revolution of February, have proved themselves; and if he wishes to prove that he is not a mere name, he will as far as depends on him, throw the

government into the hands of men who do not presume to sit in judgment on Almighty God, and who have firm and fixed principles, religious as well as political. Away with your Odillon Barrots, your De Tocquevilles and Dufaures, and call to your aid, not a mongrel cabinet, but a cabinet of decided and uniform principles, composed entirely of such men as De Falloux, De Tracy, and the noble De Montalembert, men who are not ashamed to avow themselves believers in God, and obedient and loving sons of his church. Heed not the clamor of infidels, and men who affect a homage for religion in general and despise all religion in particular. The Catholic portion is the only sound portion of the population of France, and is, as it was in the time of the first consul, the only portion on which any government that wishes to be strong and stable can rely for its support. If this policy is not pursued, we think the republic will be short-lived, and what will succeed we need not undertake to conjecture.

SHANDY M'GUIRE: OR IRISH LIBERTY.*

[From Brownson's Quarterly Review for January, 1849.]

WE have no respect for the ordinary run of novels, whether written by Catholics, Protestants, or infidels; but we have never thought of opposing all works of fiction, nor, indeed, all works whose principal aim is to amuse. "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy." Relaxation is one of the necessaries of life, and innocent amusement, moderately indulged, contributes to the health of the mind as well as to that of the body. We object to novels in general, because they are sentimental, and make the interest of their readers centre in a story of the rise, progress, and termination of the affection or passion of love. Sentimental tales, whatever the natural sentiment they are intended to illustrate, are seldom unobjectionable; for they almost inevitably tend to destroy all vigor and robustness of character, and to render their readers weak and sickly.

* Shandy M'Guire, or Tricks upon Travellers: a Story of the North of Ireland. By Paul PepperGRASS, Esq. New York: 1848.