Prussia. Absence of oppression has been by no means complete. The Polish status here has suffered from the position of Austria itself and from the growth of the Ukrainophil movement in particular, but they have acquired a position of some constitutional, social, and economic influence. I would turn to the title of my paper for excuse in giving you so hurried a glimpse of unhappy Poland as I have done, but it is sufficient for my purpose in asking you to draw a parallel of its unhappy fate with the unhappy fate of Ireland. Ireland, we all know, has felt the grip of narrow-minded government. 'It is commonly supposed,' writes Mrs. Green, 'that Ireland, the outpost of Europe, must by nature hang for its support on the fortunes of England.' Here we have the keynote of the trouble of centuries between the two countries. We do not need to pursue investigations further than the date we took for our starting-point in reviewing the history of Poland, 1798. Indeed, the Ireland of Grattan and Flood had been intellectually fertile,' and had resulted in legislative independence in 1782. But how short-lived were the hopes raised from this measure? Practically a decade later Ireland was in the throes of a rebellion round which legend has woven plenty of romance, which touches the imagination and spirit of all countries, but after the wonderful chivalry and bravery which attended the effort of '98, this rebellion was followed by one of the most disgracefully contrived acts in history-the Union of 1801. We can hardly realize the utter wretchedness of the country following on this union. She sank into the slough of despondency and despair. And what has been the result? Like the attempt of the three despoilers to destroy the nationality of Poland, the attempt to destroy the nationality of Ireland has resulted in a century of ceaseless agitation, from the rising of 1803 to the present day. Every period of rebellion which saw the abortive efforts of Poland saw likewise such efforts on the part of her unhappy foster-sister. The phenomenal rise of O'Connell, indeed, counted for something. For, even though the magnifying glass of subsequent historical criticism has found faults and apportioned failures, the re-awakened spirit of independence which his personality infused into Ireland bore some fruit. The Catholic Emancipation Act of 1829 made possible the Repeal movement. Rebellion and revolt arose in Ireland, as in Poland, and in 1848 the wave of revolution touched also this unhappy isle. So also the Fenian movement of 1867 was evidence of the futility of attempting to crush nationality. Need we pause to realize why the position of Ireland has caused such rebellions. Government by martial law, a huge army of occupation, the colossal ignorance of Englishmen, such as Peel, who, actually, saw good in Ireland, except for a general confederacy in crime and a settled and uniform system of guilt'-a callousness in administration which made English parliamentarians gloat over the extinction of Irishmen, even in quite modern times-these are but a few evidences of the misgovernment of Ireland. But not only politically, but also religiously and economically, has this oppression gone on in Ireland as in Poland. Thus, though we find plenty of English sympathy with Polish injustices in the early nineteenth century, we also find Irish industry and resources crushed out by the Act of Union. A very reliable Irish historian has brilliantly pointed out that from 1817 to 1870 the cost of government in Ireland was under 100 millions, while the contributions to the Imperial Exchequer were 210 millions. So that Ireland sent to England twice as much as was spent on her. In other words the taxes rose far beyond the rise of taxes in England, and while one-third of these taxes was spent in Ireland, actually two-thirds were absorbed by England. Even under Gladstone, in 1852, two and a half millions was added to Irish administration when the country was devastated by famine and disease. But it is impossible to bring before you thoroughly in this paper the utter drain on Irish wealth caused by England. Suffice it to say that all material progress was impossible, all permanent government rendered hopeless by such injustices. So, too, in religious matters, Ireland, to some extent, resembled Poland. Throughout the long period of physical protest and open rebellion in the nineteenth century arms were openly apportioned to Orangemen, while Catholics were penalized for their maintenance. Something, indeed, was done by the Disestablishment of the Irish Church in 1869; but as to complete religious toleration, we are wondering if it has yet come. Thus subjection, political, religious, and economic, has resulted in Ireland, as in Poland, in misery and rebellion. The draining of the country of men and money has passed unheeded, nay, has even drawn passages of exultant and gloating triumph from more than one English newspaper and statesman. In both countries recent years had brought some relief by reason of intelligent demands and the growth of constitutionalism which had characterized those responsible for the conduct of the policy of these respective countries. But the absolute analogy of Ireland and Poland at the outbreak of the present war_must have struck forcibly every student of history. Is the opportunity now afforded for righting the wrongs of two of the most oppressed of the small nations of Europe? At this point we are reminded of the pathetic picture in Roman history, when, after years of oppression by the patrician lords, the desperate Plebs betook themselves off to found a new, a freer State. The Patricians, ready to appreciate their loss and unwilling to lose the dignity of their order, at length commissioned one of their order to beg them to return. So have recent events reminded us of the patrician countries of Europe asking these two communities to return to their help. Has the lesson of nationality, ever recurring throughout history's pages, been successfully learned at this juncture? Let us hope that the late superhuman struggle may afford some comfort at all events in the release of these two hitherto crucified nations. Let us hope that the folly of trying to extinguish nationality and absorb nations will be taken to heart by the various countries of Europe. Then Kosciusko, Emmet, Fitzgerald, and those innumerable Polish and Irish nationalists will not have died in vain, but their deaths will have been witness to the truth of the beautiful words of Byron : Yet freedom, yet thy banner torn and flying, Streams like the thunderstorm against the wind. THE LATE RIGHT REV. MONSIGNOR HOGAN WE desire to pay our tribute of respect to the memory of the late Right Rev. Monsignor Hogan, President of Maynooth College. His death has removed a familiar and esteemed figure from the ecclesiastical body in Ireland, and we are sure that the sorrow of his immediate colleagues in Maynooth at his passing away will be shared by the generations of priests in Ireland and abroad who studied under him. Born at Coolreagh, in the County of Clare, in 1858, Mgr. Hogan commenced his studies at the Diocesan College, Ennis; thence he proceeded to Paris, where his distinguished uncle, the Abbé Hogan, resided, and entered St. Sulpice. He continued his studies at Freiburg/im Breisgau, and was ordained in 1882. After his ordination he resided for some years in France and Germany, and laid the foundation of his cultured knowledge of Modern Languages. He had excellent qualifications, therefore, for the Chair to which he was elected in Maynooth-that of Modern Languages. This Chair he held until his appointment as President in 1912. In that year he also resigned the Editorship of this Journal, whose destinies he had so well guided for almost twenty years. His representative position as President of Maynooth led to his appointment as Senator of the National University in 1913, and as Pro-Vice-Chancellor in 1914; and in the latter year he was made a Domestic Prelate. As a writer, Mgr. Hogan wielded a ready and trenchant pen. His two controversial works, Irish Catholics and Trinity College, and Maynooth College and the Laity, are good examples of his powers in this respect. In the domain of pure scholarship his Life and Work of Dante exhibits a deep sympathy and scholarly acquaintance with the work of the greatest of Catholic poets. Those of us who knew him intimately shall ever regret the loss of a genial and kindly friend and colleague. In many respects his outlook was that of the old school, and he had the corresponding virtues of the old school. Amidst the bustle and pre-occupation of the new era there will be not a few, we trust, who will remember from time to time, in their prayers, the old master who sleeps his last sleep in the quiet God's-acre of the College which he loved so well. THE EDITOR. NOTES AND QUERIES THEOLOGY SIN COMMITTED IN BAPTISM REV. DEAR SIR,-Kindly answer the following query in the I. E. RECORD: An adult sins in the reception of Baptism by the voluntary lack of attrition. Does original sin remain, or has it been removed? If removed, how? And what of the personal sin committed? CANADENSIS. The original sin remains. It will be removed by the Sacrament of Baptism, when that sacrament 'revives.' The personal sin, we may take it, is not a mere momentary act coinciding with the reception of the sacrament: it extends before and after. In so far as it is antebaptismal, it will be removed by Baptism in the same way as the other: as post-baptismal, by contrition, or by attrition with the Sacrament of Penance. As committed at the very moment of reception, it is more probably post-baptismal, on the old principle Prius est esse quam esse tale: if so, it is remitted in the same way as others of its class; if not, as others ante-baptismal. If the original sin stood alone, attrition would suffice for reviviscence. But, to remove the other, contrition or Penance with attrition is required. Since they cannot be remitted separately, neither will be forgiven till the stricter condition is fulfilled. ABSOLUTION IN URGENT CASES REV. DEAR SIR,-After receiving absolution from censures Caius had to say as a penance the whole Rosary twice a week for four years. Occasionally, during this period he omitted to say the penance within the week-not with the intention of omitting it altogether-but of postponing it. He fears also that through acting in this way he may, on a few occasions, have, through his neglect, omitted altogether some of the penances. To make good such possible omissions it is his practice, during retreats and occasionally at other times, to say extra Rosaries. Moreover, though he believes the penance was imposed only for four years he is not absolutely sure about the period of four years; but believes it must have been imposed for this period, otherwise this definite term would not be in his mind-he has continued fulfilling it (and still |
