does any one believe that John Knox would take the "scarlet woman" to his bosom, if there were nothing to be made by it?

Is it not a little remarkable that Mr. Huntington occupies exactly the same platform here as Sir Alexander Galt, and yet that the Globe should defend the one and scold the other? Both advise the English-speaking population of Quebec to range themselves beside the French Liberals of that Province, in view of a threatening peril; and yet the former is a saint and the latter an unpardonable sinner. Had Sir Alexander consented to be the Reform nominee in Montreal West, against Mr. Thomas White, would the organ have uttered a word against him? Certainly not. It is only because he declared himself a non-party man, that his past career is raked up and travestied. Had he consented to trot quietly in harness, his old offences might have been "rank and smelt to heaven," but still he could, like M. Cauchon, have been amongst the thoroughbreds of Ottawa to-day. When the organ asserts that it was only after the delivery of Mr. Huntington's Argenteuil speech, dated 30th December, 1875, that Sir Alexander spoke out, it must surely have forgotten the introduction to his letter. At any rate, what advantage could "a Conservative champion" hope to reap by breaking from his party, and recommending an alliance with the Globe's own political friends in Quebec? As the Mail puts it, he has probably injured no one but himself. The difference between Mr. Huntington and Sir Alexander Galt is by no means in favour of the former : for the one only sought to strengthen his Government and party, whilst the other snapt party ties asunder without regard to consequences.

The organ attempts to wriggle out of its awkward attitude in the matter of Dr. De Angelis, but unless its readers have forgotten what it said on the former occasion, the endeavour will be futile. What did it then mean by expressing regret that Mgr. Bourget had not explained his real meaning earlier? What significance can we attach to these words-" Unless we had been assured, on authority to which we are inclined to attach great weight, that such was and is Bishop Bourget's meaning, we should have adhered &c.? Now it has another story to tell. The opinion of the Roman theologian was "a virtual repudiation" of the pastoral, and it is glad of it. If so, how could it have ex

pected the Bishop to have condemned himself in advance " some months ago," or have accepted the Roman interpretation as actually being the "meaning" of the pastoral? It might be as well perhaps if the Globe, entertaining as it does so much deferential respect for Dr. De Angelis, would send to him both articles, so that people might ascertain what their meaning was and is." Telegrams on most reliable authority" are not always the most trustworthy; but if it be true, as we were told the other day, that Bishop Bourget has resigned his see and been made an Archbishop unattached, that is to say, in partibus infidelium, the organ's second thought was better than its first.

Into the general subject, there is no need to enter at length. Sir Alexander Galt stated fully the whole case with singular clearness and ability. It is said, however, that all the acts of which he complains were done by a local Government, "which has power to act in such matters." Indeed! We should have thought that some of them were of Dominion, and even of Imperial, interest. Is the introduction of the Canon Law a local matter? Or the restriction of the right of appeal to the Privy Council? Or the declaration on the statute-book of a British colony, that "the decrees of our Holy Father the Pope are binding?" If these and other enactments are intra vires, matters have indeed come to a serious pass. They are, in fact, flagrant violations of the statute of Elizabeth, cited in the Quebec Act of 1774-the same Act which concedes the tithes and all the other special privileges enjoyed by the Quebec clergy. In the absence of the Minister of Justice, it may not be amiss to call Mr. Mackenzie's attention to them, and to ask whether he does not intend to exercise the veto power without delay. Ifthis be a vain resource, perhaps His Excellency may be advised to send them to Lord Carnarvon, who would make short work of them. In any case a future Guibord dispute will bring their Canon Law within the purview of the Judicial Committee. It would be rather singular if the Provincial Legislature of Quebec could do what the Dominion Parliament has not been permitted to do-bar the right of appeal to the highest court in the Empire.

These local statutes only give a faint idea of the imperious assumptions of the Quebec hierarchy. Dr. Newman, being in England and but a faltering advocate of the Vatican

decrees, declares that the Syllabus is not a binding, because not an ex cathedrâ, utterance. But in the adjoining Province it has been cited in Courts of Justice, as if it were part and parcel of the law of the land. Judge Mondelet, who delivered the first judgment in re Guibord, vehemently protested against it. "It only remains," he said, "to express my astonishment that one of the learned counsel for the defence should have pushed their pretensions so far as to cite to the Court the Syllabus, in order to sustain a proposition that the competence of this tribunal in the present case is condemned by the Church. It is sufficient merely to note such an assumption to appreciate its value." Since that, the Syllabus was quoted in a well-known case by Judge Routhier, sitting on the bench, in loco Regina, as binding in Quebec. How often this has been done in the Courts of that Province, in cases of less importance, we cannot pretend to say.

The whole matter lies within very small compass. The Quebec hierarchy look upon Quebec as their peculiar American preserve, in which they may do as they please. They have lost their power in all, or nearly all, the vast region from Mexico to Cape Horn; Quebec, therefore, is to be pre-eminently the paradise of the Ultramontanes. There they hope to find, mutatis mutandis, a second Spain, and, in fact, it stands now on a similar footing. The eleventh article of the new Spanish Constitution is a very mild and ambiguous provision in favour of freedom of worship. It will be observed that it does not concede much in the way of toleration, and yet it has been denounced by His Holiness, the soi-disant "prisoner of the Vatican," as 66 violating every right of truth and of the Catholic religion," and as "opening the door to error." The article reads thus: "That the Roman Catholic religion is the religion of the State; that, within the bounds of Christian morality, freedom of religious cultus shall be lawful, but no public manifestations other than those of the Church." Now it is obvious that even this limited concession might be rendered entirely nugatory in the hands of a Catholic Nero or Domitian, and, at the best, may be construed so as to prohibit burials, or anything other than private family worship. We were about to add that it would be curious to learn what the liberal Archbishop of Toronto

thinks of the Pope's violent language about so small a matter; but it is not well to be curious when one's curiosity will certainly remain unsatisfied.

Archbishop Lynch, who was present at Sir Alexander's address, hastened on the following day to reply. There is nothing specially worthy of note in his Grace's strictures. The old dish, to which our palates have grown accustomed, was again served up with the inevitable Henry VIII. sauce. As a matter of policy, or rather as a dernier ressort, it is perhaps excusable when an ecclesiastic, who cannot meet an opponent on his own ground, drags or tempts him into the quagmire of theology. No one knows better the pitfalls of that treacherous region than the Archbishop; but Sir Alexander Galt had taken care to mark out his ground accurately at the lecture, and therefore the remarks of his critic on that head were but as the whistling of the wind through the gaping crevices of a ruined mansion. It is not true that the Bishops were abused, or that the Church was assailed as a religious institution; on the contrary, the speaker was studiedly suave and courteous in referring to them. With the religious convictions of Roman Catholics the politician, qua politician, has nothing to do; but when the hierarchy of an important Province systematically set about getting possession of the government, coercing the legislature and forcing it, by sacerdotal pressure, to pass unconstitutional laws, and then impairing freedom and purity of election by ecclesiastical intimidation of the grossest character, the battle becomes a constitutional and.. political one. On this, which is the true casus belli, the Archbishop is discreetly silent, simply because he has no effective argument to advance. That he should take refuge in the old penal laws, or the wrongs of Ireland, is natural, for other shelter for him there is none; but that his Protestant allies should revamp these platitudes, and even charge Sir Alexander with initiating a repressive policy in regard to Roman Catholics in Quebec or otherwhere, is something marvellous.

No religious minority in any empire or kingdom under the sun has ever been treated with more considerate liberality than the million of Catholics in Quebec. They enjoy rights and privileges denied to ever Protestant denomination; and that not, as is falsely asserted, under any stipulation made on their

behalf by France, when she surrendered these miserable "arpents of snow," but by the free and generous goodwill of the Imperial Parliament. Their clergy were emancipated from the irksome control of Bourbon despotism, and now discharge their sacred functions under the benignant sway of British constitutionalism. If Roman Catholics would bethink themselves of it, the recent assaults on the State here and elsewhere are only the outward signs of a renascent mediævalism. It is the Bull Unam Sanctam, with its two swords and its absurd exegesis of Scripture, which reappears, clad in modern guise, in the Syllabus, inspires the bold speech of Cardinal Manning, and even lends a tone of discord to the soft, melodious notes of Dr. Newman. It means despotism in Church and State, with the supremacy of the former over the latter. Our contention is that the cloven foot has appeared and left its unhallowed traces on the statute-book and ballot-box in Quebec. The best proof that all Sir Alexander Galt as serted is true appears in a sop for Cerberus just thrown by the Archbishop of Quebec. The hierarchy find that they have been precipitating matters and propose to take in sail for the present. The new Pastoral forbids interference in elections, by the priests, and, although there are one or two ambiguous phrases, it is ostensibly a reversal of the policy hitherto pursued. And thus a censure is virtually pronounced, not only on Mgr. Bourget, but upon the whole Provincial Council of Bishops, his Grace himself included-a general peccavimus all round. It affords a striking sequel to the late election at Charlevoix, at which each candidate appeared in the field backed by a Church dignitary. Of course episcopal pastorals may still trench upon the political domain, and the obnoxious laws remain upon the statute-book, so that very little has yet been effected, if anything, of practical importance. The claim to supremacy still remains; and, even although it be allowed. to lie dormant, it may be revived at any favourable juncture. The best safeguard of our constitutional liberties against ecclesiastical encroachments lies in the pluck and power of a free people.

Sir Alexander Galt's first address had for its subject the financial condition of the Dominion. We have no space for even a

sketch of his masterly survey of the present situation, nor is it necessary to attempt it at this late date. The main cause of commercial depression he, in common with others who have treated of the subject, believes to be over-importation-" we have imported more than we can pay for." And therefore, "the true remedy for the general commercial distress is to put the brake on, and stop to a large extent the excessive importations which have taken place." He does not consider that there has been any serious overproduction in manufactures, and, therefore, dismisses that as a cause of the depression. The brake has already been applied, for the imports have fallen off considerably; but this, of course, means a corresponding falling off in the revenue. Sir Alexander believes that Mr. Cartwright has under-estimated the probable decrease in importations, and, therefore, will be disappointed in his revenue estimate for 1876-7. He urges abstinence from borrowing and retrenchment in expenditure. Believing that no effective reductions can be made elsewhere, the speaker laid violent hands upon our great public works, especially the Pacific Railway and the canal enlargements. Here, as it appears to us, he has gone much too far, and has failed to take into account the recuperative power of the Dominion. In his desponding vein, he seems to have forgotten that the honour of the country is pledged, and further, that the fainéant policy he advocates would arrest the progress of the country, check immigration, and defer indefinitely the settlement of the North-West.

On the tariff question, Sir Alexander Galt gives no uncertain sound. His policy is eminently a national policy-not retaliatory but defensive. "Supposing an overplus of production here beyond home needs, our manufacturers naturally look to the American market, which they find closed by high duties, while, at the same time, American manufacturers have, to a large extent, access to our markets. The position is not exactly a fair one." In order to adjust the balance, in some degree, he proposes the adoption of what is termed incidental protection, or, as he prefers to call it, “modified free trade." For Sir Alexander is no protectionist, in the strict sense of the word; on the contrary, he devotes a considerable portion of his address to demonstrating the mischief high duties have wrought in the

neighbouring Republic. His policy is perfectly intelligible to every one who has considered the subject, except perhaps Mr. Mills, whose obtuseness is invincible. In his "brilliant speech" before the London Chamber of Commerce, the member for Bothwell observed, "that of all systems of taxation there is none more objectionable than incidental protection. It imposes the public burdens upon a portion of the community, and many of these are among the poorest.' This, of course, was uttered ad captandum vulgus; but what does it really amount to? In the first place, it is directed against protection pur et simple, and not against incidental protection at all; and in the next, it makes against all customs' duties whatever, when levied on articles in general use. What he means by "a portion of the community," it is difficult to conjecture. We presume that if the duty on refined sugars were increased ad valorem its pressure would be tolerably uniform over the entire community. The Dominion revenue is almost entirely derived from indirect taxation, and if the western philosopher desires a complete change of system, he had better say so explicitly.

Mr. Mills would probably feel deeply injured if we failed to refer to a letter of three columns in length, embellished by an aureola of sensational headings, which appeared in a western paper early last month. All the notoriety he desires it is out of our power to give him, but a slight propitiatory offering may be grateful. There is no cause of quarrel between us that we are aware of; but Mr. Mills seems determined to pick one in some way or other. In our May number we animadverted, in fair terms enough, upon the report of the Committee on the causes of prevailing depression, and by doing so have drawn upon ourselves this brutum fulmen. Intrinsically, the letter is undeserving of notice; still to gratify the irate member, we shall waste a little space upon it. An innocent remark of ours, which was neither dogmatic, argumentative, nor critical, although Mr. Mills stigmatizes it as both the first and the last, ran as follows:"We presume the report is looked upon by its author with all the pride of paternity." Now how were we to know that the hon. member was ashamed of his literary offspring? Common courtesy restrained us from entertaining the supposition. Yet it Yet it

appears that he was and is profoundly ashamed of it, and would leave it upon anybody else's door-step, if he could safely do so. It is a matter of regret to us that Mr. Mills should have made himself "quite ill," ransacking the Parliamentary library, but that is no reason why he should vent his sick humours upon us.

The objection that the Committee transcended its instructions when it reported a dissertation on the respective merits of free trade and protection comes next. Mr. Mills replies that in 1847, Sir Chas. Wood (Lord Halifax) did not confine himself to the causes of distress, but also reported a remedy, although not instructed to do so. Sir Chas. Wood is not much of an authority, although he has been Chancellor of the Exchequer, but he certainly did not launch into an argument against something which appeared not to be a remedy. His report was positive and not negative, like our friend's. But Mr. Mills shall be condemned out of his own mouth: "I would have preferred to have made the report a complete analysis of the evidence taken, but for this there was not time." It is not surprising that the hon. member is ashamed of his report, when he is conscious of having neglected, unavoidably we admit, the real work he was set to do, and of eking it out with sur perfluous and irrelevant padding. That Mr. Mills has no faith in patriotism, we knew before, and therefore he need not have wasted words on the matter. He is at heart a foreigner, and has no sympathy with Canada or the Empire.

Sir Alexander Galt's address may not have reached the hon. member when he penned his letter, and it contains all that need be said on another point. A comparison of that address, we shall not say with the report, because that is a sore point with Mr. Mills, but with the "brilliant address delivered at London, will serve to show the difference in point of intellectual calibre between the two men-the one a statesman, the other a sciolist. Mr. Mills supposes that the same fiscal policy is good for ever, without regard to time, place, or external circumstances; Sir Alexander recognises the fact that a tariff which may be appropriate at one period may not be even defensible after a lapse of years, and he is quite unconscious of inconsistency when he advocates a modification of it under altered condi