panying obligations of supporting a party, especially when that party was in opposition to the known desires of the Catholics of France. Just then when the Education question was coming prominently before the public mind Louis Veuillot was appointed editor of L'Univers, a post which he was to retain to his death, and from which he exercised an enormous influence, not only upon the ecclesiastical affairs of France, but of the world.

To understand the work that was before L'Univers and the Catholic Party we must briefly indicate the grievances of which they complained. When Napoleon seized the power in France, one of his first and most constant cares was the education of the young. It is in the schools, he argued, that lasting impressions are made, and if we are ever to have a united, happy, loyal people, we must secure that education be everywhere of the same kind and the same standard. The training of the young belongs entirely to the State, and private enterprise must be jealously excluded. The University is to be the centre from which the springs of education must flow, so that to it belongs the educational monopoly. It is to fix the conditions and grant the licences for the opening of secondary and even primary schools, but it may refuse such licences, or when given withdraw them, without being responsible to any court of appeal. The University was to have the field, and no rivals were allowed. With the University thus controlling absolutely the secondary schools, and almost absolutely the primary schools alsoa University deeply imbued with the worst and the most violent rationalistic views-we can understand the grievances under which zealous Catholics laboured.

To remove this educational monopoly was the great aim of the Catholic Party. Just now they had at their head two men, each a leader in his own department: Montalembert, the scion of one of the noblest houses of France, one of the most eloquent among the many distinguished orators who have ever graced the French tribune, and Veuillot, a plebeian of the plebeians, full of the fiery, generous enthusiasm which wins the confidence of the

masses, at the helm of the foremost Catholic journal of the nineteenth century.

It was a struggle to the death between the Catholic Party and the University.

'The Catholics,' wrote Louis Veuillot to the Minister of Public Instruction, are resolved not to abandon the fight which they have begun against the State education. The system of which you, sir, are the head exposes our religion to such dangers, hampers it with fetters so unbearable, prepares for it poisons so subtle that we believe it to be a crime to remain silent even a moment. You shall not extinguish us save by justice or by force. You shall be obliged either to allow us open our schools, or to open for us the prison.'

Montalembert, as head of the Party, issued a manifesto, the tone of which would be highly desirable in Ireland at present.

The Catholics of France [he wrote] have been accustomed for years to rely on everybody else except themselves. Numerous, rich, esteemed even by their most violent adversaries, they lack only one thing, and that is courage. In public life they are Catholics in the last place, instead of being Catholics before everything. They will never get what they seek, until they make up their minds to act like men. Liberty is not bestowed; it is won.

But despite his appeals many held coldly aloof, or expressed their disapproval. The spirit of slavery had burnt itself into their souls, and not even the fiery eloquence of a Montalembert could infuse a little generous enthusiasm. Still the struggle went on, and the war against the University Monopoly was waged with increased bitterness after the introduction of the project of Villemain which, while pretending to redress the Catholic grievance confirmed entirely the authority of the professors, and dexterously sought to divide the Catholic ranks by offering a large bribe to the clerical seminaries.

Louis Veuillot and L'Univers were not backward in the fight. By pamphlet and in the columns of his paper he heaped ridicule upon the Government's proposals, and besought all friends of liberty to stand firm against bribery

as against persecution. In consequence he was cited before the Courts of Justice and condemned to pay a heavy fine as well as to undergo a month's imprisonment. The Government proposals passed the Senate and were sent forward for discussion to the Chamber of Deputies, after which, during the vacation, a period of calm set in, to be followed only by events more startling.

We shall pass over for the present the divisions in the Catholic ranks, the disputes between Montalembert and Veuillot, and we shall proceed directly to the last struggle culminating in the Falloux Law of 1850. The Revolution of '48 had opened men's minds to the dangers of University teaching, and to the direction in which it tended. M. Thiers denounced the schoolmasters as an army of communists and anti-clericals. The University,' he wrote, 'has fallen into the hands of phalansterians. To-day my opposition is directed against the real enemy, and the real enemy is the democracy, into whose hands I will not deliver the last rampart of social order, the Catholic Church.' It was in religion and religious training alone that he could see any hope for the future. Many of his colleagues were of a similar conviction, and as a result M. Falloux was appointed Minister of Public Instruction, on the express understanding that the education difficulty was to be settled immediately. An extra-Parliamentary Commission was selected to prepare a bill for the Chamber, the majority of whose members was unfavourable to the Catholic claims. Montalembert and the Abbé Dupanloup were the most prominent representatives of their party, but wisely or unwisely instead of standing by the demands for complete educational liberty, which their friends had up till then put forward, they were willing to make a bargain and to sacrifice some of their claims. Such a line of conduct divided the Catholic forces. The opposition of Louis Veuillot, who had been carefully excluded from the Commisson, was feared, and as a consequence, M. Falloux was deputed to wait upon him and secure his approval, or at least his silence, but the most he could extract from him was a promise not to open the attack till the Chamber had

appointed its committee. Ten days later the campaign. began with an article from Veuillot in L'Univers :

A new and heart-breaking chapter [he writes] has begun in the history of our long struggle for freedom of education. It is not without serious uneasiness and regret that we shall enter upon it. The University stands before us, such as it was, such as it shall remain, deaf to the lessons of the past, wedded to the most dangerous tendencies of the century, irreconcilable with the Church and with liberty; but it is not the University alone which causes us anxiety. By the side of it we see some of our dearest friends, our most illustrious leaders, those whom we have until now followed, and whom we love, those whose hearts are the most honest, their intentions the purest, their devotion the most tried; men of talent, men of weight who can well pretend to speak and to bargain in the name of their Catholic countrymen. For ourselves, we shall stand by our old principles, and though pained by our present isolation we shall be comforted by our memories and our own conscience.

It was evident that the Catholic Party was completely shattered. Montalembert openly attacked L'Univers and its editor in the Assembly. But the friends of social order demanded the overthrow of the University power, and as a result the Falloux Law allowing the opening of Free Secondary Schools was passed in 1850.

[To be continued.]

JAMES MACCAffrey.

Notes and Queries

THEOLOGY

NEW LEGISLATION ON THE ACCEPTANCE AND CELEBRATION OF MANUAL MASSES

IN the I. E. RECORD of October a very important decree of the S. Congr. Con., dated 11th May, 1904, has been published. This decree, Ut debita, deals with the acceptance and celebration of Manual Masses. The teaching of moral theologians, if not of canonists, is, in some matters, considerably modified by the new legislation contained in this decree. During several centuries the Popes and the Sacred Congregations have made laws with the object of repressing abuses by which the due discharge of obligations in connection with Masses has been seriously disarranged. The recent decree helps to complete the previous legislation. Its grave import renders an explanation, however brief, of its contents useful.

(1) Masses affected by the decree.-The decree, Ut debita, speaks principally of Manual Masses :

Declarat in primis Sacra Congregatio manuales missas praesenti decreto intelligi et haberi eas omnes quas fideles oblata manuali stipe celebrari postulant, cuilibet vel quomodocunque, sive brevi manu, sive in testamentis, hanc stipem tradant, dummodo perpetuam fundationem non constituant, vel talem ac tam diuturnam ut tanquam perpetua haberi debeat.

Pariter inter manuales missas accenseri illas, quae privatae alicujus familiae patrimonium gravant quidem in perpetuum, sed in nulla ecclesia sunt constitutae, quibus missis ubivis a quibuslibet sacerdotibus, patrisfamilias arbitrio, satisfieri potest.

Ad instar manualium vero esse, quae in aliqua ecclesia constitutae, vel beneficiis adnex ie, a proprio beneficiario vel in propria ecclesia hac illave de casu applicari non possunt ; et ideo aut de jure, aut cum S. Sedis indulto, aliis sacerdotibus tradi debent ut iisdem satisfiat.

All Masses which are not Foundation Masses, in the