will be discussed more at length in a following article in our number, and perhaps in future numbers of our Review.

Closely connected with this subject is another defect of Catholics in this country, less easy to explain and excuse than those we have referred to. The Rambler seems to think that a portion of the Catholics in the United Kingdom are less disposed to tolerate free thought and free speech in open questions than they are in the United States, at least this is the construction that The Dublin Review puts upon its language; but we are inclined to think the reverse is the fact. In matters of faith or orthodoxy the Catholics in this country are by no means too rigid or too exacting, and saving certain Jansenistic tendencies now and then encountered, we are far enough from being too intolerant; we are liberal enough towards heresy, and none too strenuous in our maintenance of the form of sound words; but in the sphere of opinion, within the sphere where we are all free to hold the opinion we prefer, and to follow our own private judgment, we seem hardly to understand what toleration means; we practise very little of4 that mutual forbearance, that wise liberality, and that, mutual respect and good will which our religion enjoins. Let an honest, upright, sincere Catholic, whose piety and whose orthodoxy are above suspicion, defend in open questions, an allowable opinion not in accordance with the opinion of a portion of his brethren, and they open upon him with a hundred mouths, denounce him, misrepresent his opinion.

the learning, science, views, or ability of those who have charge of
what after the French we may call Secondary Education. The defec-
tive education of our youth is not precisely their fault.
It is far more,
if not altogether the fault of Catholic parents, who are too insensible,
with a few honorable exceptions, to the necessity of that higher educa-
tion we contend for. The college faculties have to a great extent to
educate the children of uneducated parents, and these parents will not
leave their sons long enough in the college for them to become scholars in
any worthy sense of the word. Boys leave college at an average age
of eighteen, at the age they should enter the university, and commence
a new course of four or six years. Till parents become more aware of
the importance of giving, when they have the means, a more thorough
and a more liberal education to their sons, and cease to think they
must close their studies at sixteen, eighteen, or even twenty, no modi-
fications of our systems of education, or of the educational staff, will
give us the educated and highly-cultivated body of young men the in-
terests of our religion and of our Catholic population demand.

or his arguments, appeal to popular prejudice against him, and do their best to ruin him in the estimation of the Catholic public. We suffer ourselves now and then in this respect to run even to shameful lengths; we need specify no instances, for several will readily occur to our readers. Many of us seem not to be aware that we are bound to respect in others that freedom of thought and utterance which we claim for ourselves, or that freedom of opinion is as sacred in them as it is in us. There is nothing more uncatholic than to tyrannize over others in matters of opinion. So long as a man saves orthodoxy, says nothing to weaken dogma, or against morals and discipline, so long as he is within the limits of free discussion allowed by authority, and manifests no heretical spirit or inclination, his honest opinions, honestly uttered as opinions, not as dogmas, are free, and no man has the right to censure him for them, let them be what they may, to denounce them, to seek to render them odious, or to bring popular opinion in any respect to bear against them. They may be controverted, disproved, shown to be unsound, or even dangerous, if they can be, but only by fair discussion on their merits, and by legitimate argument.

Unhappily, this rule is far from being always observed. Judging from what we have seen and experienced since we became a Catholic, this rule is reserved only for special occasions, and in the discussion of matters in which we take no interest. If we have to deal with a strong man, who is to be presumed to understand himself, and to have some skill in fence, not a few of us make it a rule never to discuss the real question or never to discuss it on its merits. We make up a collateral issue, evade the real point in question, give our readers a false and mutilated view of the opinion advanced, detach a few sentences from their context, and give them a sense wholly unintended and wholly unwarranted, attack a conclusion without hinting at the principle from which it is obtained, and then proceed to refute the opinion we do not like, and which we have shaped in our own way, by arguments addressed not to the reason, but to the ignorance, the prejudice, or the passion of our readers. It would seem that the study is, through the unfair mode of treating the opinion, to damage in the estimation of the public we address the author, and

then, through the author, the opinion. We hardly recollect in the nearly thirteen years of our Catholic life an instance in which an able and intelligent Catholic writer has been met by his Catholic opponents with fairness and candor, or his opinion discussed on its merits with courtesy or common civility. Our domestic controversies speak but ill for our civilization, our liberality, and our conscientiousness. Our so-called Catholic press, in regard to our disputes among ourselves, where differences are allowable, stands far below that of any other country, and indicates a lower moral tone, and an inferior intellectual culture. For the honor of American Catholic journalism, and, we must add, for the honor of American converts, several of whom are editors, and those who display the most intolerance, and the least fairness and candor towards their opponents,-we must labor to elevate the character of our journals, demand of them a higher and a more dignified tone, and insist that their conductors devote more time and thought to their preparation, take larger and more comprehensive views of men and things, exhibit more mental cultivation, more liberality of thought and feeling, and give some evidence of the ability of Catholics to lead and advance the civilization of the country. We want the men who conduct our Catholic press to be living men, highly-cultivated men, up to the highest level of their age, men who are filled with the spirit of our holy religion, and will take their rule from the morality, gentleness, courtesy, and chivalry of the Gospel, not from their petty passions, envyings and jealousies, or from a low and corrupt secular press, that disregards principle, mocks at conscience, seeks only success, and counts success lawful by whatever means obtained.

Our readers will not misunderstand us. We are advocating no tame, weak, or sickly style of Catholic journalism. We ourselves like plain dealing, if honest, and severity even, if it is the severity of reason, not the severity of passion. We respect an honest, downright, earnest style, which tells clearly, energetically, its author's meaning without circumlocution or reticence. We have writers who in their language observe sufficiently the outward forms of politeness, and as far as mere words go are not discourteous, but who yet are highly reprehensible for their intellectual unfairness, for their want of candor and strict honesty in

reproducing the doctrine, the real thought, and the arguments of their opponents, and replying to them as they stand in the mind of the author. No smoothness of language, no polish of style, can atone for substantial unfairness of representation or mutilation of an opponent's meaning or argument. The mere manner is a small matter; the substance is the thing to be considered. The American people do not need to be addressed in baby tones; they are not, taken in mass, a refined people, but they are an earnest people, and like plain dealing, and demand of those who would gain their hearts, or their ears, sincerity, truthfulness, honesty, and courage. They cannot endure persiflage, or what they regard as unfairness, evasion, or cowardice on the part of a Catholic writer. Be manly, be true, be brave, be open, be just, and then be as strong, as cogent in your reasoning as you can. We complain of nothing of that sort; but we do complain of the uncandid, unfair, and intolerant manner in which the views and arguments, and even persons of respectable and highly-deserving Catholics, are treated by those of their own brethren who are placed in a position to have more or less influence on the public opinion of the Catholic community.

The intolerance which we complain of, and which seeks to crush an opponent by bringing extrinsic forces to bear against him, and which refuses to discuss the points in dispute on their merits, is the greatest discouragement and hinderance to free, original, and manly thought that can be conceived. It introduces a false standard of judgment, and subjects the thinker or the writer to a test which neither the Church nor the State imposes. It tends to make authors and journalists the slaves of popular opinion, to erect popular opinion, which may be only popular ignorance, prejudice, or caprice, into a Papacy, or to substitute it for the Pope and councils, for the Church and her pastors and teachers. It dwarfs the intellect; it freezes up the wellsprings of thought; it prevents one from ever rising above commonplace, and renders him tame and feeble. Every man should always be free to ask, What is true? what is just? what needs to be said? not forced to ask in self-defence, What will be popular? what will people say? or what will gain me a momentary reputation? Great practical questions every day come up which deeply concern the

State, and even religion, and in the discussion of which the Catholic publicist must take part if he is to be a man of his age and country, a living man and not a fossil. He must be free to take part and adhere to principle, without any fear of the popular opinion of the North or the South, of the East or the West, of this party or of that. Truth knows no geographical boundaries, and is not determined by sectional lines, nor is it to be subordinated to the petty. passions and interests of office-holders or office-seekers.

We have the right to expect Catholics to have a conscience, to be wedded to principle, and prepared to stand by it to the death. When they understand themselves and appreciate the liberty of thought and expression their religion allows, they are never intolerant; and never seek to excite public opinion or bring the force of popular or party prejudice to bear against an honest and intelligent writer, who happens to advance, within the limits of free opinion, something not in accordance with their own convictions. They feel and know that it is their duty to stand by the Catholic publicist, who boldly defends the cause of truth and justice, of religion and humanity, in a straightforward, earnest manner, although he may incidentally suggest thoughts or opinions which they are not as yet prepared to receive. They feel and know that it is theirs to sustain him in the exercise of his lawful freedom, and to shield his reputation from the attacks of ignorance or malice. They may frankly controvert his opinions, if they deem them unsound, but they will do it with argument, with fairness, and candor, without seeking to lessen him in the public estimation, or detract any from his merits as a man and as an author. They must do so, or we shall have few men appear in our ranks with sufficient force of character and strength of mind to serve us in our hour of need, to meet on equal terms the enemies of our cause; or to give a free and healthy development to Catholic literature and science. We must place in our publicists, who prove themselves true men, a generous confidence, and treat them with justice and liberality.

The Rambler has very justly remarked in one of its numbers that in the English-speaking world there is a very general, deep-seated impression that we Catholics, when our religion is in question, lack frankness and courage, and