counsel for Northern Ireland agreed with Lord Dunedin, the presiding judge, that the defect could be legally remedied by an Act of Parliament. The question whether this could be done constitutionally was not discussed.

As soon as the findings of the Judicial Committee were known, Mr. Ramsay MacDonald invited Mr. Baldwin, Mr. Lloyd George, and the other signatories of the Treaty who were still in Parliament, to a conference. Subsequent events have shown that Mr. Lloyd George agreed that the defect must be remedied by legislation. Mr. Baldwin, however, was opposed to legislation, unless the Commission was also restricted to a mere rectification of the boundary.

An agreement was then made with the Free State that the British Government should be empowered by legislation to constitute the Commission by appointing the third representative in default of the Government of Northern Ireland. The agreement was signed by Mr. MacDonald and President Cosgrave. Early in August bills legalizing this agreement were introduced into Parliament and the Dail. It was announced that Parliament would meet to take the second reading on September 29, and that when the agreement had been legalized at Westminster the Dail would meet to complete its ratification. Both legislatures then adjourned. Mr. John Devoy, the aged Fenian leader, on a visit to Ireland made a strong appeal for settlement by agreement, on the ground that fixture of the boundary by compulsory arbitration would operate as a bar to Irish union. The appeal, like all its predecessors, was without result, but it is worth noting that it came from the leader of a party which has in the past stood for physical force. The Irish Statesman, edited by G. W. Russell (E), was zealous in the same cause.

V

On September 30 Parliament met. In moving the Bill, Mr. MacDonald argued that in 1922 Parliament and also the electorate had both explicitly decided that the boundary must be subject to a revision by a commission which must also be left free to determine for itself the meaning of Article 12. British honor was involved in removing the unforeseen error in draftsmanship which prevented the Government from giving effect to the clear intention of the Treaty. He made it clear that unless the Bill was carried the government would go to the country. Mr. Baldwin intimated that the Unionist Party as such would not divide against the Bill, but in committee would move an amendment restricting the commission to rectification. The second reading, however, was opposed by the Ulster members, but was carried by 291 votes to 124, some Liberals as well as Conservatives voting against it.

This debate was closed by a speech from Mr. Thomas, which a distinguished member of the Opposition described as the ablest which the House of Commons had heard in recent years. The Conservative amendment was negatived by 257 votes to 207, and the Bill then went to the Lords.

The most positive assurances have been given to the House by Mr. Thomas that he will use his powers under the Act to appoint a member of the Commission who will represent, not the views of the British Government, but those of the Government of Northern Ireland. In reference to this statement Sir James Craig spoke as follows on October 7 in the Parliament of Northern Ireland:

'If this new compulsory Boundary Commission is persisted in, and the finding is such that it is acceptable to

the Parliament of Northern Ireland as representing the people-well and good. On the other hand, no matter whom the British Government may nominate as the third member, if the decision is such that it cannot be accepted by the Parliament of Northern Ireland, I for my part will not hesitate for a moment, if no other honorable way out is open, to decline to be responsible for carrying on the government. I would then resign and place myself at the disposal of the people, no longer as Prime Minister, but as their chosen leader, to defend any territory which we may consider has been unfairly transferred from under Ulster, Great Britain, and the Flag of the Empire.'

The debates in the second chamber took place on the seventh, eighth, and ninth of October. To the motion that 'the Bill be now read a second time' Lord Salisbury moved to insert after the word 'that' these words: 'this House, having taken note of the opinions expressed in Parliament and elsewhere in connection with the passage into law of the Irish Free State (Agreement) Act, 1922, by the Members of His Majesty's Government who were signatories of the Irish Treaty, that Article 12 of that instrument contemplated nothing more than a readjustment of boundaries between Northern Ireland and the Free State, and believing that no other interpretation is acceptable, or could be enforced, resolves that.'

In the Commons such an amendment would have been disallowed by the Speaker, but under the laxer procedure of the Lords it went to a division. The Government opposed it; but the amendment was carried by 71 votes to 38. It has, of course, no legis

lative effect whatever, and merely served as a record of the personal views of those who voted for it. In Committee on October 9 Lord Carson moved an amendment providing that, in view of Sir James Craig's speech, the measure could not come into operation until it had received the assent of the Parliament of Northern Ireland; but he did not press it to a division, and the measure received the royal assent and became law that night. It does not come into operation, however, until the scheduled agreement has also been approved by the Free State Legislature.

On October 8 the Government was defeated in the House of Commons on a motion for a committee of inquiry into the conduct of the AttorneyGeneral in withdrawing a prosecution for sedition against the acting-editor of the Worker's Weekly. On the ninth the Prime Minister announced that the King had accepted his advice to dissolve Parliament, which was accordingly dissolved. Whatever the results of the General Election on October 29, it may be presumed that the Free State Legislature will have confirmed the agreement in time for the Labor Government to appoint a member on behalf of Northern Ireland and so constitute the Commission. The ultimate decision will then rest for the most part with Judge Feetham. Seldom has a heavier burden been placed on judicial shoulders. But even if the boundary can be fixed without disturbing the peace of Ireland, a compulsory award will operate to defer the day of Irish Union - unless perchance the spirit of Abraham Lincoln should descend upon some leader, in the Free State or in Ulster, and nerve him to master his own Vindictives.

THE impression of power and mystery which provides Roman Catholicism with its gift of fascinating or repelling, as the case may be, arises from those relations with dominant interests which are particularly the work of the Cardinal Secretary of State. At the head of Vatican diplomacy is of course the Pope, in absolute authority, but his Secretary of State advises him about his politics. The Secretary of State collects information on the relation of each particular Power to anything which touches Catholic interests; he sends out Nuncios and Apostolic Delegates; and he receives the representatives of foreign Powers as well as any private person who represents a powerful interest or can provide important information. Cardinal Gasparri is in this position. A genial and astute Italian of well over seventy, with the excellent memory, the quick mind, and the strong character of a ruler of men, he has held the office for the last ten years and, while keeping his Church free from all the imbroglios of the war intrigues, has strengthened and enlarged his powers at the same time that fate has shown him the collapse of his most powerful adversaries, the Czar, the Kaiser, and the Khalif. Beneath him are three separate departments: of extraordinary affairs, ordinary affairs, and the dispatch of apostolic briefs. Monsignors Pizzardi and Centoz are his chief secretaries, but all work requiring authority or tact is reserved for the Cardinal.

I

And what are they doing these clerical diplomats? It was a question everyone asked when M. Herriot announced in the French Chamber that he intended to withdraw France's Embassy to the Vatican. For even when the French Embassy is withdrawn there still remain thirty-three Powers with representatives at what those Powers call the 'Holy See.' The majority of course come from Catholic States: the States of South and Central America, Austria, Spain, Belgium, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Poland; but there are representatives also of Great Britain, Germany, and Russia, as well as of Holland, Switzerland, Greece, and Rumania. As we shall see, there is also some more or less formal intercourse with Japan and other great non-Christian nations. And though the United States and Italy are without a representative at the Vatican, they are by no means outside the orbit of the complex influence of Papal diplomacy.

When M. Herriot announced the intended withdrawal he said it was not an act of hostility to the Catholic Church, but rather a sign that, all religions being free, he would not favor one rather than another. Considering the representation of the non-Catholic countries, such a view will not bear examination. The British Empire has a population of over four hundred millions; of these rather less than twenty millions are Catholics. It could hardly be said that these were being favored at

the expense of the ninety-five per cent of other religions. The majority of British subjects are Hindus; the next in number are Mohammedans; but Britain's mission to the Vatican has no relation to this fact, and her representative there is now a Protestant.

Nor, in fact, was there ever any suggestion that in France or any other country diplomatic relations with the Holy See were a compliment to the Catholics of the country. The objects of international diplomacy are something other than compliments to the subjects of the country represented. It is not because some Americans have sympathies with Great Britain, with Germany, with Italy, or with France, as the case may be, that Washington has established embassies in the capitals of those countries.

II

Diplomacy is the official means by which one Power adjusts its own interests with those of another. Just as commerce is the normal relationship of mutual advantage between nations as between individuals; just as friendly intercourse is the social counterpart of commerce, being a commerce of ideas and sympathies; just as the press is the general agency of general information, diplomacy is the means by which countries come in direct contact with one another through their Governments. It embraces the whole system of interests which arise from the intercourse existing between nations; it is especially occupied with the assurance of public safety and order and with the consistent and friendly assertion of the relative dignity of nations; and its object is to maintain a just balance between different political societies. This explains why nations are prepared to pay for diplomatic representation.

As we look back into the past,

when potentates assumed an absolute sway over their states, we see that an embassy was, in general, a compliment, accompanied by well-chosen gifts, from one ruler to another. The ancient Hindu monarch, Chandragupta, we remember, writing to Alexander the Great, asked for a box of figs, some raisins, and a sophist. The Great Mogul, receiving Sir Thomas Roe as ambassador from James I of England, offered an elephant and asked for a horse. But diplomacy of that time was far more than an exchange of compliments or presents. 'Mutualle and friendlie traffique,' wrote Elizabeth to Akbar, 'from whence great profit and advantage on both sides do come,' was the cause that certain of her subjects 'with a courteous and honest boldnesse' repaired to the borders of his empire. The object of diplomacy was already what is known in Italy as sacred selfishness: sacro egoismo.

And this is true in a special sense of the intercourse of Christian sovereigns with the Holy See. When the Popes established themselves in the city of the Cæsars, the glory of Rome's ancient empire gave its own power to their counsels. And as they built their throne upon the ruins of the secular empire's decline and fall, they inherited the honor which Europe had given perforce to the temporal dominion of the happy city. Roman law and the Latin language and Latin civilization altogether were something on which Christendom was dependent, and the empire's ancient capital was beyond all argument the most convenient centre for undivided Christian society. And as Christianity gradually became the religion of Europe, the hold over human nature, which has always been remarked as a great asset of the Catholic religion, united with its intellectual efficiency to attract the respect and the reverence of monarchs and their

counselors. The bishops and even the priests were the governors of society: their influence swayed the life of the peoples and had much to say about the happiness of kings and princes.

As individual Christians, as the dispensers of civil authority, and as the heads of society, sovereigns and their monitors were compelled to give to the Pope almost as much attention as they would have given to Cæsar. A Pope who could place their people under an interdict and so leave babies unbaptized, deprive weddings of Christian blessing and the dead of Christian burial, was a power they could not afford to disregard. No office was more important in their realms than that of the Papal Legate. On the appointment to bishoprics and benefices, moreover, they must obviously arrive at an accommodation; the king would justly expect homage from his subjects for their temporalities, even though their spiritual authority came from him whom they reverenced as successor to Saint Peter. But it was by no means unusual to feel a grudge about this tribute, or to question the unity which depended on the centralized authority. On a doctrinal point, Eastern Europe separated from Rome in 1054. In the sixteenth century there was a hardly less important separation. Through these two great divisions Christendom has, for the most part, ceased to be a unity. The ideal of a universal society has become obscured. Though Protestantism arose in many countries it was never international. Sometimes national and sometimes unofficial, it of course rejected intercourse of any kind with the Papacy. Not unnaturally, therefore, therefore, the idea became current that to send an ambassador to the Pope of Rome was simply the courtesy to Catholicism that M. Herriot suggested.

During the nineteenth century there was a change, however. The unifica

tion of Germany reminded the King of Prussia of the power of the Papacy, as Irish politics give the same reminder to English politicians. While Prussia, as well as Bavaria, sent an envoy to the Vatican, England sent only temporary messages and missions. It was the war of 1914 that showed her Foreign Office how essential it was in her own interests to return to the custom of the Middle Ages. In the time of stress, they realized the vast power of the Catholic Church. They saw her power of obtaining information and of influencing opinion. They were compelled to remember that her adherents were almost ten times the population of Italy, France, or England; that they were all united in their allegiance to the Pope; that, at the most solemn moments, they all looked to the ministrations of his priests; that all who were most stable morally among them had a reverence for, and probably a passionate devotion toward, the counsels of him they called their Holy Father; and that while Germany and Austria were in close diplomatic touch with him, neither France, Italy, nor Great Britain had any representative at all.

In 1916 England attempted to remedy the difficulty by sending a special mission under a distinguished Catholic diplomat, Sir Henry Howard, who was succeeded on his death by an Irishman, Count de Salis.

At the end of the war, France, partly as a tribute to the patriotism of her clergy and her Catholic people, and partly as an acknowledgment of the temper of her regained provinces, resumed relations interrupted eighteen years years before.

What of Italy?

Italy is still a new nation. When the present Pope was born, he was born near Milan as an Austrian subject. Venice and Lombardy were Austrian provinces; Umbria, Latium, and the