than the ordinary run of Irish papers, were established and placed under ecclesiastical management or supervision, a paper with good and well-written leading articles upon Irish and Catholic subjects, and with interesting Irish and Catholic news and information, a paper well got up and printed, and arranged somewhat after the manner of the Tablet, the Weekly Register, the Spectator, or the Pall Mall Gazette? Like the Tablet, it might be "A Catholic Weekly Newspaper and Review," and deal largely with Irish educational and ecclesiastical matters.

By the way, if we, English Priests, want to know anything of the educational, ecclesiastical and Catholic state of affairs in Ireland, it is chiefly to the Tablet we have to turn. Strange to say, there is not, I think, in Ireland a single Catholic newspaper which may be termed an Ecclesiastical one; that is, one dealing, if not exclusively, at least principally, with matters interesting to Catholics in general, and, above all, to priests. And by the way, too, how many eloquent and splendid Irish Catholic sermons are lost to English Catholics, and also to the world, for want of being reported and published in occasional and cheap numbers, and so forming what might be entitled, "The Irish Catholic Pulpit."

But to continue. There are not wanting, I am sure, in Ireland, or amongst Irishmen, talent and ability for the management and conducting of such a paper as I suggest. With a staff of steady and thoughtful directors, and of able and talented writers, such a paper, I think, could not fail of becoming a success, and of becoming the leading Catholic paper of Ireland, and a paper most acceptable to priests, and to Catholic educated laymen. And no doubt the paper would, in time, have a sale in England and Scotland, equal to that of the Tablet and the Weekly Register in Ireland, and containing general and interesting Irish and Catholic news, would also have an extensive circulation in America and Australia. The paper might be entitled, The Irish Catholic Chronicle: a Weekly Newspaper and Review; or, perhaps better, The Irish Chronicle: a Catholic Weekly Newspaper and Review. I have done.-Faithfully yours,

AN ENGLISH PRIEST.

CLANDESTINITY AND DOMESTIC SERVANTS.

Our correspondent "Dunensis," referring to the decision

which we gave in the case made by "Canonicus

Dublinensis," where the servant, after having the banns twice published in one parish, "resigns her situation in that parish," leaving it finally and for good, and takes a room in another parish, in which she intends to live after her marriage, and where, in our opinion, she gets married lawfully and validly, observes as follows, in reference to our

opinion, and our quotation from Dr. Murray in its support, (see RECORD, vol. iv., new series, page 740):

"Now, what I don't understand is the grounds of the universality of this solution. It is true that we must have conjoined the "factum habitationis," and the "intentionem ibidem perpetuo habitandi," in the case of a domicile, and in that of a quasidomicile, the "factum, et animum ibidem permanendi per majorem anni partem." In cases, however, such as that proposed, there must be numberless instances in which, owing to want of means and other causes, which might be easily specified, the "animus habitandi perpetuo, vel per majorem anni partem" is not absolute, but merely conditional; the condition being that of marriage, Hence, in such instances, we would have the validity of marriage dependent on a condition which does not exist, and which will only exist when the marriage has actually taken place. In other words, the existence of a condition necessary to the validity of a marriage depends on the due celebration of that marriage, and the validity of the marriage itself depends on the existence of a condition which is simply non-existent. Such is the difficulty in which your solution involves me. May I trouble you to elucidate it?-Faithfully

yours,

"DUNENSIS."

We think, if our correspondent refers to the last number of the RECORD, in which we pointed out that speculative uncertainties of this kind, whether regarding the tenure of the house, or the means of living, cannot affect the acquisition of the domicile in the eye of the law, he will find his first objection satisfactorily answered. As regards his second objection, that the animus perpetuo habitandi is conditional on the marriage, the distinction to be made is very obvious it is conditional on the intention of getting married, we admit; it is conditional on the actual marriage, we deny. What is conditional on the actual marriage is actual residence subsequent to that marriage; but not actual residence before it, nor the intention of living there after it.

In reference to another statement, incidentally quoted from the RECORD by "Can. Dub.," that parties from the country, even when the female does not mean to return again to her father's house, may be validly married in Dublin by her own country pastor, because the sponsa loses her own, and intends to acquire her husband's domicile "only through and after her marriage," our correspondent "Rusticus" argues against the validity of such a

marriage at some length, and with much ingenuity; but, inasmuch as the same question was asked and answered in the RECORD before (see new series, vol. iii., page 253), we think it unnecessary to re-open the case again, and beg to refer our correspondent to the place indicated for a solution of his difficulty.

A correspondent, who signs himself a "Country Priest," asks whether he is bound to perform the Caesarean Section in order to baptize a foetus less than four months and a half old, when the mother, too, is dying of a lingering and painful disease, and, moreover, there was no one there to help him, and a doctor assured him that, in any case, there would be no use in his performing it. We answer, most decidedly not-the last reason alone would suffice; and we may add that, in our opinion, in this country a priest is rarely, if ever, bound to perform this operation, in order to baptize a child or a foetus.

J. H.

BUTTER ON FAST DAYS OUTSIDE LENT. STIPENDIUM FOR THE SECOND MASS.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE ECCLESIASTICAL RECORD.

REV. SIR,-May I trouble you to give replies to the two llowing queries in the next number of the RECORD:

1. Does the dispensation granted by the Holy See for the use of butter at collation during Lent apply to the same meal on other fast days outside Lent?

2. In a diocese where the Priests who duplicate on Sundays have permission from the Bishop to adopt a honorarium for each Mass, is there any law to prevent a Parish Priest, should he find it necessary to duplicate, from accepting a honorarium for his second Mass?-Faithfully yours,

A. B.

As to the first question, we cannot speak with certainty, because we have not seen the original application. We are inclined, however, to think that the privilege, such as it is, extends to fast days outside Lent; for the only exception made regards the "more solemn fast days," which seems to refer to black fast days of Lent-they are specially excepted.

If our correspondent in the second question words the Bishop's permission accurately, Parish Priests who are allowed to duplicate are not included, for he says that

Bishops give permission to priests who duplicate on Sundays "to accept a honorarium for each Mass." He could give no such permission to Parish Priests one Mass at least must be said for their flock, and without a honorarium. But, if the Bishop considers himself justified in giving a general permission to Priests who duplicate to take a honorarium for the second Mass, then we should say that the Parish Priests are included, and may take that honorarium for the same justa et gravis causa which warrants the Bishop in granting the permission to take a honorarium. for the two Masses, in the case of the Curate, may justify him in granting permission to the Parish Priests to take it for their second Mass.

J. H.

DIRECTORIUM, SEU ORDO OFFICII DIVINI RECITANDI.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE IRISH ECCLESIASTICAL RECORD.

REV. DEAR SIR.-The Directorium, seu Ordo is an annual publication of great importance to the clergy. It is in their hands daily for reference. It has an enduring interest extending over the entire year. A compilation of so opportune and practical a character should above all things recommend itself to its supporters by clearness and completeness in matter, as well as by convenience in form. The labour and devotion which the reverend and revered compiler bestows on his work year after year cannot be denied genuine appreciation on all sides. But where Canon Kehoe's work concludes, the publisher makes his advance and unduly intrudes on the attention of the clergy with some 282 pages of totally extrinsic and superfluous matter in the line of business advertisements and public notices. The result is that the "Ordo " proper of 120 pages is made so gross and cumbersome that a priest is obliged when going from home for a day or longer to tear out a leaf containing the required office which he runs the risk of losing or misplacing at one time or another, and thereby perplexing himself for a time at least very considerably. It is time to speak freely on this matter. What is wanted in the way of an Ordo is a small and well got-up pocket issue paper and letterpress the best. I have no doubt that the clergy could be supplied with an Ordo of this class for a shilling or under. The clergy use the current Ordo only of necessity. They have no choice. There is a class of matter, specially selected and appropriate, which might with advantage be partially intermixed with the Ordo without altering the character of the publication or adding very much to its substance. A few texts of dogmatic or moral extracts given at the end of each page would give warmth to the matter, and seizing the eye and the mind, would help those about to recite the great prayers of the church to collect their thoughts, and thus "Digne,

attente, et devote officium recitare, et exaudiri ante conspectum Divinae Majestatis." Such texts abound in the Psalms, Book of Job, Imitation, Memoriale, and in the works of St. Francis De Sales and St Teresa.

Nearly four years ago (RECORD 1880, vol I., No. 6) complaint was made by a correspondent, "W. O'B." of the "bulky and expensive way our Ordo is brought out."

I will supplement my present remembrance with the cogent remarks of W. O'B. and so conclude. "One hundred and fifty pages are taken up with the Ordo proper, the rest being devoted to advertisements which, for the great majority of priests, have no interest, and for this we are called on to pay 1s. 6d. Now, I think they (the priests of Ireland) could and ought to be supplied with a handy volume containing what is necessary for sixpence. Other improvements might also be introduced into it with advantage, but I content myself with objecting to the size and price. I may remark that the English clergy have their Ordo for sixpence. In Rome and Belgium the price is still less."

I am, &c., &c.,

GEO. JOSEPH GOWING, P.P.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE ECCLESIASTICAL RECORD.

DEAR SIR, Amongst the Statutes of our Diocese I read the following admirable one :-"Omnino prohibetur Clericis nostris, sub quocunque praetextu, pecuniam accipere in tribunali penitentiæ.

The "pecunia" here referred to usually takes the form of an "honorarium" for Mass, and the Statute as it stands receives three different interpretations, viz. :-(1) Some say it no longer binds, for that custom has abrogated it; (2) others contend that you may accept when the confession is over, but not before; (3) lastly, there are those who maintain that you cannot take at all, before or after.

Those who adopt opinion No. 1 are certainly wrong, for I have it on the highest authority that this Statute still retains its binding force.

It therefore is a question as to the interpretation put upon it by Nos. 2 and 3. I hold that the words "in tribunali penitentiæ" mean not alone the Confession but the Confessional also, and that therefore opinion No. 2 is incorrect. I shall thank you for your reading of it.-Your's in Christ, W. J. P.

We should say in this case-consulatur episcopus. Meanwhile, however, we are inclined to agree with our correspondent that the Statute forbids taking any money, not only during confession, but also before or after it. And if it meant anything else, it would be perfectly useless.

J. H.