hold, that men may be saved from death, upon repentance, by Christ's merits, even though they have sinned. But one is accustomed to this style of theological discussion, and one can make large allowance. One could hardly expect that eminent teachers should confess that they have been mistaken all their lives, and, abdicating the papacy of their infallible opinions, should go humbly back to ignorance again. Yet we all ought to do this if necessary. But let those who cannot accept our hope learn at least a deeper wisdom and a truer charity in the attempt to refute it. To go on repeating such arguments of the Dark Ages as those which I have quoted is to rely on bows and arrows in a battle-field swept over its whole surface from every point of vantage by the mighty artillery of modern war. They may identify us, if it so pleases them, with the emissaries of Satan; but certain passages of the Gospel in which the Pharisees were blasphemously guilty of a similar identification might make them pause and tremble, lest in so doing they should be guilty of a very frightful sin. But we shall not retaliate. Do they love God? So do we. Do they put their trust in Christ? So do we. But, let them denounce as they will, our hope for ourselves and our fellow-men proves this onlythat our trust in the love of God is deeper, our faith in the efficacy of Christ's Redemption is stronger and larger, than is theirs.

F. W. FARRAR.

CONTEMPORARY LIFE AND THOUGHT.

A

I.

IN ITALY.

FLORENCE, 10th May, 1878.

STRANGE fatality attaches itself to certain years, which seem especially consecrated to death: 1878 is for Italy, assuredly, one of these funereal years. The first Italian General, Alfonso La Marmora, the first King of Italy, Victor Emmanuel, the first infallible Pope, Pius IX., the first historian of our legislature, our first Piedmontese statesman, Count Federico Sclopis, and our first astronomer, Padre Angelo Secchi, have in less than three months all been taken from us. I must be allowed to say a few words of one of the two latter distinguished Italians.

Count Federico Sclopis died at the age of eighty, at Turin. His life must be read in his works, and in the acts of his administration. He belonged to that high aristocratic Piedmontese class whence sprang Santarosa, Saluzzo, Balbo, La Marmora, Villamarina, Alfieri, Azeglio, Cavour,-an aristocracy at once liberal, studious, learned. All these men were energetic, enterprising, ready to sacrifice themselves when needed, and at the same time were full of good counsel at junctures which needed prudence. They were not very opulent indeed, but so much the more generous was it of them to give for the cause of the House of Savoy to the uttermost of what they had. That cause in their time had become the cause of Italy. Sclopis, it is true, did not take part in the Piedmontese revolution of 1821. He had no faith in it. But neither did he associate himself with any reaction. On the contrary, at each attempt of that kind he showed an attitude of protest, and sought, by his historical and legal studies, to predispose others to a serious, gradual, though continuous and energetic, liberal reform. He undertook to write the history of Piedmontese and Italian legislation, not merely with the aim of producing an erudite work, but rather to point out which were the good laws of the past still worthy of being put in force, and which were the bad laws that no longer could be tolerated. While criticizing past legislation, Sclopis was, in fact, inaugurating that of the future-or at any rate preparing for it. He thus, in 1847, earned the honour of being called to take part in the reform of the laws affecting the Press, and to help by his enlightened counsels in the compilation of the Constitutional Statutes of the kingdom of Sardinia. Free from all intemperance or excess in politics, this excellent statesman still found ways of persistently patronizing the liberal cause.

It may not be unwelcome to the English reader to be reminded, that in the year 1853, on the eve of the Crimean war, Federico Sclopis published, at Turin, a work entitled "The Political Relations between the Dynasty of Savoy and the British Government (1240-1815): Historical Researches, with additions of Authentic Documents.' This interesting work takes for its motto the words of Quintilian, "Operum fastigia spectantur, latent fundamenta." Its object was to demonstrate how ancient an origin could be pleaded for cordial relations between the House of Savoy and the throne of

England. The records of the interrelations of the House of Savoy date from the middle of the thirteenth century—that is, from the marriage of Beatrice, a sister of Count Pietro of Savoy,with Count Raymond Berenger of Provence, of which was born the daughter who was afterwards wife of Henry III. of England, and who went to London accompanied by her brother Pietro, who received several fiefs in England, and by her brother Boniface, who subsequently became Archbishop of Canterbury. In exchange for the benefits bestowed on the queen's two young brothers, the elder Count of Savoy, Amadeo, ceded in fief to King Henry III. Susa, Avigliana, St. Maurice, in Chablais, and the Castle of Bard. The other Counts of Savoy and the first Duke, had but rare and unimportant relations with England.

"If we put faith in some of the memorials of the time," writes Sclopis, "the Duke of Savoy was the centre of the extensive correspondence which Mary Stuart held with the Catholic princes all over Italy. Perhaps the arrival of David Rizzio (a Piedmontese) in Scotland among the suite of the Savoyard ambassador, and his well-known rising into favour with the Queen, might give opportunities for opening closer negotiations. But history affords no facts to prove any important results arising from the negotiations. From the time, however, of Emmanuel Philibert till now, the relations with England have been uninterrupted and, one may say, always friendly. Even in moments of great difficulty, times in which the Savoyard princes had to guard against friend and foe, they always found protection from the English government." "The equity of England," writes Sclopis, "alone arose worthily to aid Italy; equity both enlightened and sagacious-for in securing to Italy the hoped-for reward England aimed at accomplishing an European equilibrium, an equilibrium that should be the bond of peace, a pledge of progress, and the initiation of a growing force."

So Sclopis wrote of the European equilibrium in 1853. If he could be called upon now to pronounce on the question exciting all Europe, what would he say?

It is a digression, but I may be allowed to point out that Italy, who herself owes so much to England, and especially to the Liberal party, which is represented by its Cobdens, Gladstones, and Brights, finds herself in the present hour, much to her grief, in disagreement with the Eastern policy of the English Government. Let us hope that the return of our former minister at Constantinople to the post of Minister of Foreign Affairs will facilitate some readjustinent of our relations with England. The policy of Count Corti at Constantinople was prompted by a great practical knowledge of the present condition of Turkey. He had a deep conviction that this condition ought, at all risks, to be changed, and he felt a sincere desire that all the Powers should resolutely agree, not only for the sake of justice, or because the barbarities of the Turkish Government ought to be put a stop to, and because the cause of the Christians and that of civilization were identical, but also to prevent Russia becoming the sole avenger of the Christians and their protectors, and thus, in case of victory, acquiring in the East a most dangerous supremacy. What has actually happened was all predicted by Count Corti, and his words and deeds, both before and after the Conference of Constantinople, have been so verified by events, that our new Italian Ministry was naturally led, with the Berlin Congress in view, to recall him to deal with these questions of Oriental politics. This choice has given general satisfaction in Italy, and secures to us a certainty of our being able, in the present European crisis, to give an authoritative opinion, when the right diplomatic moment comes. It is not likely that the appointment will meet with the approbation of all the present English Ministers, but we feel sure that the majority of the English people will approve of it.

In the speech made in Parliament by Benedetto Cairoli, President of the Council of Ministers, inaugurating his administration, we read these words:

Of this indeed the recent ceremony of the investiture of King Humbert with the Order of the Garter is another instance. Many other Savoyard Princes have received the same Order from England. Count Sclopis recognized its true worth by calling it a "demonstration of affection."

"On foreign politics we will refrain from making any superfluous declarations. The moment is serious, the morrow uncertain. Italy, who has friendly relations with all the Powers, will, while maintaining neutrality, and abstaining from all peril, know how to retain the respect of all. While aspiring to the solid benefits of a secure peace, we cannot think the preparations useless that are being made to complete the arrangements of our brave army, so strictly organized through the skill of the preceding ministers. Neither should the provident work already begun, of raising our navy to the height of its old glorious traditions, be interrupted."

All this simply means that Italy desires peace, but in the meantime she prepares herself for war. It would be horrible for us to contemplate, were an European war to break out, that England, our old ally and defender, would perhaps have to bear arms against that nation for which she has hitherto shown an almost maternal solicitude. But let us hope that this may never occur, and that, all punctiliousness being put aside, the pending questions may be adjusted pacifically.

In Italy, meanwhile, after months of real anxiety for the solution of the difficulties of our internal policy, consequent on the dismissal of the Depretis Ministry, a little more confidence has sprung up, through the calling of Benedetto Cairoli, the great and honest patriot of Pavia, to the head of the Ministry. During two years of administration, the first Ministry of the Left, with Depretis at the helm, had given proof only of its vain love for speechmaking, joined to a narrowness of views and a practical ineptitude truly deplorable. It had made great promises to repair abuses, but it really gave rise to many new ones. The majority it had secured for itself in the House was composed, in great measure, of men without political knowledge and without character. Some of the Ministers had good intentions, but the most willing to do well were overcome by the will of the majority who dictated the laws. The Left, while in power, did not diminish but increased the taxes-did not enlarge liberty, but tended to restrict it. Certain Ministers displayed on all occasions a despotic demeanour in their office which rendered them odious. In fact, one cannot say that the Left, while in power, gave any proof whatever of successful ability; and yet its accession to office was a benefit. It was necessary that it should come into power in order that it should educate itself, for in taking from the Right the privilege of continuous power, it saved the constitutional monarchy from the danger of becoming an oligarchy. The Right wanted reforming-it was necessary that it should purify itself, and so get fresh strength. The same men were always coming into power, to repeat the same errors; the Constitutional parties could no longer discharge the duties of their respective positions as they should do. But on the 18th March, 1876, the magic circlet compressing the State too tightly was broken. There was a little haste in composing the first Ministry of the Left, but they were worthy Ministers of the Parliamentary coup d'état. Many men may be excellent conspirators for ruining those in power, and at the same time most inapt at keeping power themselves. In the first tumult they thought themselves obliged to promise all, with a certain boldness, and so succeeded in forming a new House according to their own wish. But there was so little unanimity among themselves that there soon stood forth to view a House disorganized, confused, having no firm principles to keep within bounds the various conflicting activities of the parties. Instead of real political parties, ten or twelve Parliamentary groups collected around ambitious leaders. Each group threatened to dissolve the majority if the Ministry did not propitiate them. The deputies, with few exceptions, arranged their own affairs, and those of their own commune and their own province, but rarely attended to those of the nation. Thus passed two years of pure Parliamentary anarchy. The most unfortunate department of the ministry was that of the Interior, which passed from the violent hands of Nicotera,-a man more fit to exercise the office of dictator than that of a constitutional Minister,-into those of

Francesco Crispi. It was mournful to see such honest men as Depretis, Brin, Coppino, and Bargoni forced to retire ignominiously owing to the misconduct of one of their rash colleagues, who could take advantage of his position as Minister to violate the sanctity of the law. The Parliament was silent, but, fortunately, the public opinion of the country made its indignant voice heard, and our young King, joining in the honest cry of the nation, dismissed the insolent Minister who stood charged with the crime of trigamy, and who would not retire of his own accord, thinking himself necessary to the country. Meanwhile the House, in the election of its new President (the Right contributing in a great measure thereto), has given one of the most noble proofs of our political renaissance, by protesting in the name of public morality, shamelessly outraged by one of its Ministers, that it would most willingly give place to the Left. It was ready to let the democratic party come in, but on the sole condition that strict honesty should be the basis of their actions. The young King acted nobly. Following the glorious traditions of his father, after Depretis had sent in his resignation, he, instead of yielding to the instigations of the Right, which would have alienated him definitively from the Left, thought it prudent to make a new experiment. He saw that the public sympathy leant towards Cairoli, and, like a true constitutional monarch, he charged him to form a new Cabinet. It will be well to give some particulars of Benedetto Cairoli. He was born at Pavia, in March, 1826. He was a student of law in 1848, when the first war of independence broke out, in which he took part as a volunteer. In 1859 he was again in the field as one of Garibaldi's Alpine hunters. In 1860 he commanded that seventh company of "The Thousand" of which Garibaldi said, "You are a nucleus of heroes! you deserve to be embraced every one of you." At Palermo he was severely wounded in the leg. In 1866, we find him a colonel with Garibaldi on the mountains of the Trentino,-in 1867 he was at Mentana. As deputy he spoke always in favour of the extension of electoral rights to all Italians of the age of twenty-one, who knew how to read and write. The King and Queen received him with much interest, cordially wishing him success in procuring the co-operation of colleagues who would render his Ministry lasting. But, unhappily, the present Italian Left contains little individuality, at once eminent and capable; it has many politicians, few administrators. Hence the great difficulty Cairoli encountered in composing the new Cabinet, in spite of the sympathy shown him. At this hour one can say nothing decided about its prospects. Let us go over the list. We may name Zanardelli, a man active and largely liberal, who holds the portfolio of the Interior; Count Corti, who takes that of Foreign Affairs; Seismit Doda, deputy, a man ambitious and capable, to whom is confided Finance; Francesco de Sanctis, Neapolitan deputy, illustrious as a critic, who returns to the Ministry of Public Instruction which he had already held once before in 1861 under Cavour; and Raffaele Conforti, Minister of Justice, a distinguished Neapolitan jurist. Apart from these, the others are men scarcely known till now.

All lovers of their country should desire sincerely that the Cairoli Ministry may have a long and prosperous life, and that it may succeed in increasing the national well-being. It is necessary, however, that we live in peace, for the new Cabinet to devote their attention to the diminution of the taxes, the amelioration of the conditions of our commerce, our industry, and our agriculture. With regard to this latter department, no one can disapprove the reconstituting of the Ministry of Agriculture and Commerce, which the last Cabinet, with a senseless thoughtlessness and rash precipitation, had suppressed, without hearing the opinion of either Parliament or the public. The increase of electoral rights, which should, according to Cairoli, depend not on the census but on the progress of instruction, may work beneficially by urging a greater number of Italians to instruct themselves, in order that they may enjoy political privileges. Now, the Italian is more a contributor to taxes than a citizen. But henceforward, along with increasing popular instruction, electoral