justice! Every effort has been made to have it restored to its former place on the Budget, but without success. The present rector petitioned the Chancellor of the Exchequer through Mr. Layard, the English Ambassador in Madrid, and afterwards both Houses of Parliament, setting forth the just claim of the Irish College, but all to no purpose. From Mr. Layard he received all the assistance he could possibly expect, not only when looking after this claim, but on several other occasions he had to trouble him.

W. M'D.

A WORD ON COMMUNISM.

THE upsetting of thrones and the abolition of titles seem

to have been the highest object which the French Republicans of '90 had in view. No one was to be styled king, duke, count, or knight; king and subject, lord and tenant, knight and peasant, were all to be addressed as citizens. The Communists of to-day go a good long step beyond; equality of civil rights and sameness of address are for them insufficient; equality would be as yet imperfect; the idea of property as well must be taken away, and material goods equally distributed among, or held in common by all. The extravagance of such a principle would be ridiculed by many a Republican who approvingly witnessed the murder of Louis XVI. Yet the spirit which prompted the Dantons and Robespierres is the same as prompts our Mullers of to-day. It is no other than the spirit which wrought man's fall in the garden of Eden -the spirit of pride. In '90 the French Republican could not bear that any one should be called count; to-day our Communist thinks that he should be as wealthy as a wealthier neighbour; that the lands of one should be the lands of every other; that no one's share of earthly goods should be greater than that of his fellow-men. It is pride gathering strength with time. The seeds of evil which are sown one century grow up the next, and produce full fruits, if Providence stops not the growth. It is true that kings and noblemen have to bear their burden of blame for the terrible evils which the end of the last century brought upon Europe. It is true, likewise, that when men lose the idea of another and better world, they would wish, by the easiest means, to make the best of this. Yet, notwithstanding the faults of crowned heads and noblemen in the last century, and the enticements of riches in the present, the Revolutionists of both are mainly led by the spirit of envy and pride. How, otherwise, explain the prin

ciple of equality which they are so eager to put into practicea principle which, in the minds of those who uphold it, would, were it possible, embrace the soul as well as the body, mind as well as matter, would equalize the faculties and talents of all; and, more, would lower Heaven to earth-would make God man, and man God. Do not the cries heard on the streets of Paris in the last awful outbreak indicate what they think of their Creator?

A word now on the falseness of the Communistic idea. A writer of sense would almost beg pardon of his readers for speaking of such nonsense; but we must treat the times as we find them. It would be superfluous, in the seventeenth century, to raise a great cry in defence of the rights of kings, when not many denied them; yet it would not be so to do such the next; it would be ridiculous, last century, to speak strongly in favour of property, when few were foolish enough to impugn its claims, yet to-day it is a duty. It is heartrending to think upon the truths which are assailed in our day. The world has gone mad, and we must act with it as such. Communism is not a mere name; it is taking possession of the hearts of many, and it must be refuted and resisted. Here is its fundamental error contained in a nutshell.

All things good are from God. He might have created nothing; in His liberty He has created what He has created. Decreeing creation, He might have created few beings or many; beings of one kind or of many kinds. In His wisdem He has created grades of species, the gradation arising from a difference in perfection between them, and even individuals of the same species He has differently endowed. It is through God's great goodness each being has what it has, and over what it has not, it cannot complain; for if it has a right to nothing, how can it have a right to more than it has? Hence the lump of clay cannot complain, so to speak, that it is not a plant, a plant that it is not a bird, a bird that it is not a man, a man that he is not an angel. Placing man by man, talents, too, are unequally distributed among them. One has this talent, another is endowed with that; and in those who have the same talent, there is a difference in its strength. Yet each of us must be thankful for the powers of mind he has received, since it is God's kindness that we have a rational soul at all. Is the same to be said of the distribution of material goods? It depends upon the will of God, who is the giver of all. The question, then, comes to this: Does God, as men are now circumstanced, condemn Communism? Our reason, prescinding from revelation, shows us He does. Does not reason tell us that labour bears fruit for him who labours just because he

labours, and that the greater the labour the greater the fruit. Here, let it be remembered, by labour is meant every effort, whether of mind and body combined, or of mind only, to obtain material goods. My physical strength, my business tact, my professional skill are all my own, and belong to no other; the exercise of these, and their application to their object, are likewise only mine; what is made to be through the use of these powers-namely, earthly goods-surely, has more relation to me than to any other; are these not mine, being an effect of which I, and no one else, was chief cause? From a difference in individuals in the above qualities, and in the intensity of their application, would arise a greater or less acquirement of wealth. This difference actually exists; hence the right of one to possess more property than another; hence Communism is an error. The above reasoning is equally applicable to persons holding land in common, when one labours more than another. Again, God wills that there be order in society; Communism would bring into it confusion. How could harmony reign among men of divers and opposite inclinations who possess in common? It would cause more than confusion-it would create a chaos. Take away the individual's right to acquire property, enterprise then would cease, commerce would go with enterprise, trades would be given up, professions would not be practised, intellectual pursuits to a great extent would be left aside. The reign of beggars would begin, which would terminate in common plunder, carried on in barren fields, grassy ways, and dilapidated houses. It is by God's will, consequently, that man has a right to acquire riches, and to keep them.

According, then, to God-truth and the source of truth-we find the error of the equalizing furore which prevails to no small extent in these our times. There is no doubt that one man is substantially equal to another. All men have the same high origin, and the same noble end was fixed for them. Justice, too, must be equally measured out to all. Accidentally men differ, and it is precisely this accidental difference which the Radicals of to-day would wish to remove. We have seen how erroneous is the principle which animates them. The difference among men in the quantity of property held arises from the accidents of greater or less talent and industry, and of divers circumstances. The former God gave, the latter are in His providential hands. Why fight against God? I would here even say a word against the more moderate Republicans. Some men are in themselves greater than others. There are men who, above others, benefit their country, and bring upon it honor; there are those who are

VOL IX.

36

remarkable in this or that creditable sphere. Is it not natural to call them by a name which would indicate their singular services and worth? Are not titles, then, natural? On the whole universe is stamped variety; why do men proclaim against it?

It would be far more advantageous to the Communist chiefs and to their followers to try to scrape up some money and make their way out to America- North or South-or to Australia, where they could obtain land cheaply, and without bloodshed or robbery; where they might strive, through honesty and industry, to become as rich as those who are now richer than they. It should be their ambition to rise, not to pull down those who are higher than they. They should remember, too, that the immediate object of temporal riches is the body-just as herbs in regard to the beasts of the field— and that they are entirely secondary. Above all, they should bear in mind that man's real wealth, virtue, and grace, can be, through God's goodness, as easily acquired by the poor as by the rich, by the peasant as by the knight, by the beggar as by the prince.

HOLYCROSS ABBEY.1

IN the following brief outline of the origin and early history

of this Abbey I have purposely abstained from any reference to its charters, or the particular lands with which it was endowed, as of no interest to the general reader, and presenting little else than a mere list of townlands, which can be no longer identified under their modern designations. Nor is it my intention to attempt tracing the succession of its abbots down to the Reformation, as the materials extant for such a purpose are extremely few, and those I have collected had been mislaid, perhaps altogether lost, and the sources from which they were derived are no longer accessible. This, however, I trust to be in a position to accomplish hereafter, and to be able to present to the public in a fuller and more consecutive form, an historical memoir of the Abbey of Holycross and its dependencies.

For such portions of this notice as have reference to the origin of the Abbey, and for several of the facts regarding its abbots, I am indebted to a manuscript written in 1640, by John Hartry, of Waterford, a monk of the Cistercian Order, and entitled "Triumphalia Chronologica Sanctæ Crucis," &c.,

This interesting history of Holycross Abbey was written by the late Rev. THOMAS O'CARROLL, P.P., Clonoulty, Cashel, and appeared some years ago in the Tipperary Vindicator.

which, though not strictly a history of that house, but simply a record of the miraculous cures, &c., effected through the agency of the Holy Rood, has preserved many interesting facts connected with its history.

Exception may be taken by some as to the preternatural circumstances that are stated to have led to its foundation; but, as Hartry professes to have derived his account of it, and to have framed his narrative from an ancient Irish chronicle, preserved from an early period in the monastery, there can be no just grounds for doubting the substantial accuracy of the facts he has recorded. Besides, as Donald O'Brien came from Limerick to visit the place several years before it had been in possession of the Holy Rood, it must be inferred that he was attracted thither by some singular and extraordinary event that had previously given celebrity to it.

About three miles from Thurles, on the right bank of the Suir, and under the shadow of the parish church of Templenaue, there existed, from a remote period of our history, a hermitage or cell, which was destined to become celebrated as the "Manister Oghter Lamhan," or Monastery of the Eight Hands, and, subsequently, more celebrated still as the Abbey of Holycross.

A short time before the Norman invasion, this small convent was occupied by two monks, one of whom was greatly venerated for the austerity and sanctity of his life. One day, in the absence of his confrère, the holy man was attacked by four robbers, who required him, under the threat of instant death, to surrender to them the hidden treasures of the house. The father assured them that they possessed none of this world's wealth, and that their means of subsistence were solely derived from the charity of the faithful. Foiled in their purpose of plunder, they began to mock and otherwise maltreat the holy man. "Let us then see," said they, "some proof of those miraculous powers which people say you possess." "Come," continued one of them, "make this huge tree bow down its top to the earth to do us homage, otherwise we swear we shall lay violent hands upon you." The monk remonstrated with them on their impiety, and besought them to refrain from tempting God lest some terrible visitation might befall them; but they still persisting in their impious purpose, the tree suddenly bent down its branches to the earth, and in their effort to escape, crushed and mutilated the hands of the four robbers as a retribution from Heaven for their impiety. The fame of this marvel induced several pious men to become members of the little community, and attracted pilgrims from many distant places to visit the house. Among them