voices on such a point as the moral quality of political machinery, or
that speaking with one voice upon such a point in America, it should
even seem to speak with another voice in Ireland, would clearly be a
disaster to the Church and to civilisation. From the moment therefore,
in 1886, when the issue between Dr. M'Glynn and the Archbishop of New
York was defined, as I have shown, and the Irish National League, with a
quasi-indorsement from the Archbishop of Dublin, had arrayed itself
practically and openly on the side of Dr. M'Glynn and against the
Archbishop of New York, interests far transcending those of any
political party in Ireland, in Great Britain, or in the United States,
were involved. Unfortunately for the immediate and decisive settlement
by Rome of the issue between Dr. M'Glynn and the Archbishop of New York,
a certain vague but therefore more vexatious measure of countenance had
been given, before that issue was raised, to the theories of Mr. Henry
George by another American prelate, the Cardinal Archbishop of
Baltimore, and by more than one eminent ecclesiastic in Europe. Of
course this would have been impossible had these ecclesiastics
penetrated, like Dr. M'Glynn, to the heart of Mr. George's contention,
or discerned with the acumen of the Archbishop of New York the
fundamental difference between any imaginable exercise of the power of
taxation by a Constitutional Government, and Mr. George's doctrine of
the Confiscation of Rent. But this having occurred, it was inevitable
that Rome, which has to deal with a world-wide and complex system of the
most varied and delicate human affairs, should proceed in the matter
with infinite patience and care. In January 1887 the Propaganda
accordingly cabled thus to the Archbishop of New York,--Dr. M'Glynn
persisting in his refusal to go to Rome--"for prudential reasons
Propaganda has heretofore postponed action in the case of Dr. M'Glynn.
The Sovereign Pontiff has now taken the matter into his own hands."