article, but of a volume. But, while making the assertion, it must at once be added that the revival of a deep and true religious faith in Italy is not likely to be produced by the spectacle of rival sects, each claiming to be the sole legitimate representative of Protestantism, and bickering and wrangling amongst themselves with far greater pertinacity and energy than they ever manifest against those whom it must be presumed they regard as the common foe.

The views put forward in "Il Moderno Dissidio" on the present state of religious opinion in Italy constitute an important part of Father Curci's work. Those views had perhaps the greatest share in creating so general an interest in the volume, for it would be idle to deny that on this point especially the influence of the ex-Jesuit's pages has been very remarkable. It is quite true that the spirit of the work was in different quarters differently judged. The present writer, who has had frequent opportunities of discussing with Father Curci the questions handled in his volume, would find himself not a little embarrassed if required to define exactly how far this or that widely diffused interpretation of Father Curci's reasonings was the more correct. There are "Irreconcilables" in the Papacy who, no matter what the ex-Jesuit may say in behalf of the interests of the Catholic Church and the Holy See, do not the less launch their furious invectives at his head, simply because from their point of view every Catholic who is not willing to go all lengths for the restoration of the Pope's temporal power is a renegade and a traitor. By such persons popular representation, and, as a consequence, political and administrative elections, are regarded as hurtful to the population, and are therefore by them combated à outrance. By other critics Father Curci's work is regarded as a Jesuitical attempt to recover the lost authority and influence of the Church. In their opinion a Catholic Italy, if voting in great numbers at the political elections, might obtain a parliamentary majority, and by a legislative act give back to the Church that temporal authority of which it has been deprived. A Catholic majority in the nation would thus bring about a result to be vainly looked for either from a foreign invasion or a popular revolution. Whether this really be the recondite purpose of Father Curci matters very little. It is, however, quite certain that his work has been thus interpreted by not a few Catholics, who, led astray by this delusion, sham an adherence to the present order of things in Italy solely from a hope that through the expected Catholic majority the Papal cause may be again triumphant.

Nor are there wanting many sincere Catholics who in perfect good faith believe that from the realization of Father Curci's plans would spring the restored authority of the Church, and that an effectual bar would be raised up to the further progress of freethinkers and materialists. These last, indeed, go even farther in their hopes, believing as they do that a reconciliation between the

Church and the State would give to the first an almost unbounded power. A Church, they hold, which could count on being always backed by a great military and naval State, would possess quite exceptional powers of expansion; whilst a State which could equally count on the moral influence of a hierarchy established in every corner of the globe might bring to the development of its policy elements of force not owned by any other Power. To this it is objected in some quarters that the Church would run the risk of losing its universal character. But the objectors at once receive from the persons who indulge in these utopian visions the reply that their objection would hold good if the state of things thus anticipated should have a permanent duration, whereas it is quite enough for them that a tacit reconciliation should have a temporary existence. That alone, they affirm, would give additional strength to both Church and State. These hopes may be well or ill founded, but there can be no doubt of their existence.

Such views, however, are not shared by the Conservative party, which is rapidly growing up in the midst of these complications, and which has for its political programme, not submission to the Vatican, but a moderate and conciliatory course in the treatment of ecclesiastical questions. It ought, by this time, to be clear to all impartial politicians, that a system of violent repression against the Roman Catholic Church only hastens the growth of a violent reaction in its favour. And it is fortunate for Italy that she turned a deaf ear to Prince Bismarck when he urged on her statesmen the expediency of making her laws on ecclesiastical matters the mere reflection of his own. Had Italy done so, she might have found herself reduced to the humiliation of following Prince Bismarck in his reopening of negotiations with the Vatican, and perhaps even as far as Canossa.

The demands made by Prince Bismarck showed how limited was his knowledge of the real position of the Catholic clergy in Italy. The Roman Curia is at once astute and powerful. The Italian bishops are now, for the most part, mere creatures of the Jesuits. They are utterly destitute of personal initiative, and are seldom gifted with either talent or learning. The inferior clergy are at once poor and ignorant. Widely different is the character of the Roman Catholic hierarchy and clergy, taken as a body, in England, or France, or Germany. There we see prelates of ability, energy, and erudition, labouring with untiring zeal for the domination of their Church. In what Italian province shall we find the type of the restless and intriguing priest such as he is painted by Emile Zola in his "Conquête de Plassans," a type only too familiar in the provincial society both of France and England? The incumbent of a parish in a large Italian town-when his parishioners present a mixture of clericals, liberals, and old noble families-plays the part of a dexterous diplomatist on all

VOL. XXXIII.

2 Z

political questions. When he can only count on an element of fanaticism, he plays the part of a fanatic. He is a liberal in the Venetian, Lombard, Genoese, and Piedmontese provinces, those in which the Pope recognizes as legitimate the sovereignty of Humbert I. In the country districts he commonly reflects the views of the wealthiest among the neighbouring landowners. If his squire is an out-and-out clerical, he too is an out-and-out clerical. If his squire is a decided liberal, above all if he is one who often asks his parish priest to dinner, the parish priest has extremely liberal views, and beneath the generous influence of his host's Chianti or Barolo, will keep the table in a roar by telling good stories as to the way in which the more sceptical and satirical of his parishioners are in the habit of treating the dogmas of Holy Mother Church. It is not uncommon to find the parish priest shy in speaking of politics at all, but it is very uncommon to find him preaching openly from his pulpit against the Government. The parish priests, with few exceptions, are extremely ignorant, and this general state of ignorance in the working clergy is a cause of constant and unfeigned anxiety to the present Pontiff.

Little progress has been made in the intellectual and moral condition of the Italian parish priest since the day when, thirty-one years ago, Pius IX., shortly after his accession, said to Massimo d'Azeglio:"You may find here and there an honest and intelligent parish priest, but taking them as a body they are mere dirt" (fango). It is a melancholy fact which must suggest most painful reflections to all who are really interested in the moral and religious welfare of Italy, that the parish priest generally stands in the scale of information and character below the mounted carabineer or ordinary tax-collector of his district; and no surprise need be felt if this state of matters so deeply engrosses the thoughts of Leo XIII.

THE ALCOHOL QUESTION.

IT

I.

THE CONTRAST OF TEMPERANCE WITH ABSTINENCE.

T may be assumed that there is no need now to write such arguments against intemperance as would be required if it were defended by any reasonable sober person. All reasonable people hold it to be a hideous evil, and few know more of its mischiefs than do surgeons, who see its baneful influence in multiplying the injuries due to accident and violence, and in hugely increasing the danger and mortality of operations and of injuries such as sober people bear with impunity.

The arguments against intemperance are complete and unanswerable, and in favour or defence of it there are none. But the necessity of total abstinence from alcoholic drinks is now, as for a great national advantage, urged on those who are habitually moderate with nearly as much vehemence as on the habitual drunkards. It is said by some that there is not any habitual use of alcoholic drinks which is not imprudent even if it may not be called intemperate, and that even in small quantities they are always and to all healthy persons injurious, slowly, it may be, but surely. And some, who see in them no direct harm, yet maintain that they are useless and unnecessary, and ought to be disused, so that, by overwhelming examples and custom of total abstinence, the crime and folly of intemperance may be put down. Statements such as these are confidently made; but if we look for evidence there seems to be very little in favour of them, and there is more that inclines the other way. The whole of the evidence, indeed, which has as yet been collected for a comparison of the respective influences of temperance and of abstinence on nations, or on large bodies of men, may seem not sufficient for a complete final decision. The subject is a very large one and very complicated; and, though the central question may seem narrow, it is

involved in so many more that the final general answer must be subject to exceptions for particular cases, only to be settled by many future and very careful researches. Still, on the whole, and on the question of national health and strength, I cannot doubt, with such evidence as we have, that the habitual moderate use of alcoholic drinks is generally beneficial, and that in the question raised between temperance and abstinence the verdict should be in favour of temper

ance.

The evidence of the evils of intemperance is abundant, clear, and complete. If any one accustomed to weigh facts will compare with it what is given as the evidence of the evils of a moderate use of alcohol, this must appear as, at the best, quite insignificant. Against intemperance we have the vast experience of life-assurance offices, the records of large hospitals, the unanimous opinion of all practitioners of medicine, the results of all physiological studies, the belief of all reasonable persons. Against moderation we have none of these.

So far as I know, no large insurance-office or general hospital has yet begun to collect facts for statistics bearing on the respective influences of moderation and of abstinence. Their records are of the "temperate" and the "intemperate" in various degrees; if they have any records of the "total abstainers," they are far too few for any useful comparison. And it is hard to see how in any of these institutions sufficient statistics can be gained for a decision of the general influences of habits so little apart, and practised under so great variety of conditions, as are moderation and abstinence. The least that could be used with any chance of getting at the truth would be a careful comparison of five hundred total abstainers who have never been intemperate, and were not born of intemperate parents, with five hundred habitually moderate persons similarly born and bred, pursuing similar callings, and living under generally similar -conditions; and this comparison should have regard not only to average length of life and to health at different periods of life, but to the quantity of muscular work and of good mental work done by each group. With less evidence than such comparison as this might supply, I cannot suppose that any statistics can be worth using in the question between moderation and abstinence. The reports of the health of prisoners, and of the quantities of work done by them, whilst both total abstinence and work are compulsory, cannot safely be used. Two sets of conditions can hardly be more unlike than those in a prison and those out of it. In the prison every arrangement is made for the maintenance of health and of fitness for work; every arrangement must be submitted to as absolutely as total abstinence; every prisoner's day's work must be done. But we cannot so much as guess what would be the health and what the power and kind of work of the same prisoners if, when free, they could do as they please in