Church government; but if otherwise, in either case suppression of facts is almost a fraud. Protestants have no doubt often looked with interest on Jesuit colleges and schools in the neighbourhood of London. But it never occurred to their minds that the Jesuits, with all their teaching apparatus, were exiles from London, that their colleges at Beaumont, near Old Windsor, and at Wimbledon were, as far as his own diocese was concerned, under Cardinal Manning's ban; that the Diocese of Westminster was guarded, like the Garden of Eden, by two flaming swords against the intruding Jesuits.

Cardinal Manning has put on record his rooted antipathy to the Jesuits. In one of his latest autobiographical notes, written in the year 1890, he said:

...

There is only a plank between the Jesuits and Presbyterianism. . . . They are Papal by their vow, but in their spirit they are less Papal than anti-episcopal. The claim of special dependence on the Pope breeds everywhere a spirit of independence of local authority. This is a grave danger to them, and few of them escape it. Their anti-episcopal spirit shows itself in their treatment of their own men when they become bishops. They are like the Low Church Evangelicals in the Anglican Church, who look upon their bishops as 'enemies of vital godliness.'

Cardinal Manning could not endure-it was not in his nature— to be looked upon by the Jesuits as an enemy of vital godliness.' They fell under his ban. Metaphorically he 'cursed them with bell, book, and candle.' In a laughing fashion, their retort came quick: Cardinals may come, Cardinals may go; But we go on for ever.

Cardinal Manning, as is known of all men, regarded the suppression of the Society of Jesus in 1773 as the work of God's hand; he likewise looked upon its restoration in 1827 as God's work. But his abiding hostility to the Jesuits, based, as he declared, on their corporate action in England and Rome, was testified by the prediction which he uttered on various occasions: 'I foresee another 1773.'

EDMUND S. PURCELL,

Author of the Life of Cardinal Manning.'

POSTSCRIPTUM.

Some months ago, in reply to Mr. Gladstone's refutation in a letter to me of the charges brought against him in the Month, Father Smith addressed a letter to the editor of this Review. Instead of frankly withdrawing his misrepresentations, whether with or without an apology matters but little, Father Smith, in spite of Mr. Gladstone's absolute contradictions, reiterated his charges under cover of putting a gloss on Mr. Gladstone's words. For instance, in regard to Mr. Gladstone's conversation with Manning in the summer of 1848 in St. James's Park, Father Smith suggested that Manning had likewise spoken of his difficulties and perplexities. Mr. Gladstone's denial was plain and positive: 'According to my recollection, not a word.'

Again, in regard to Mr. Gladstone's statement that, speaking of Newman and his fellow-converts of 1845, Manning had said, 'Their common bond of union is their want of truth,' Father Smith suggested that, owing to a failure of memory, Mr. Gladstone had inverted the respective parts taken by himself and Manning, and put his own words into Manning's mouth.'

When compelled by Mr. Gladstone's unanswerable evidence to back out of this charge, Father Smith excused himself for his misstatement by saying that his 'suggestion was pleasantly rather than seriously meant.' After such treatment, no one would have been in the least surprised had Mr. Gladstone not condescended to expend another word on such a special pleader. But in his kindness Mr. Gladstone placed at my free disposal' the following letter, with the liberty of making use of it when a fit opportunity occurred :

Hawarden: April 1896.

DEAR MR. PURCELL, I do not know how far you may desire to follow up the question which Mr. Smith, S.J., discusses in the new Nineteenth Century. I am, however, glad to say that I have found here the collection of my letters to Anglican Manning, which he gave me (a reluctant party to the exchange) in return for his letters to me, of which the destruction has created an irreparable loss. In this collection I find two important letters. In the first, of November 6, 1850, I recite to him the conversation (which, indeed, in substance was all on his side) of 1848. The second is of December 20, 1850, I having heard from him in the interval. In this letter I say 'we are sadly, strangely at issue on the facts of the conversation,' and then go on to specify in what way he contested my narrative:

'If I have any one clear recollection in my mind, it is that your assurances then did not relate at all to God's mercy to those who faithfully follow their light, be it what it may, but to your perfect sense of security in the Church of England from its objective character.'

It is, therefore, plain to me that the way in which he contested my narrative was not by any direct denial of the propositions I had put into his mouth, but by contending that I misconstrued him, and that he meant to refer to Divine mercy for the invincibly ignorant.

In other words, all the evidence we possess exactly agrees with my recollections, though Manning's unfortunate destruction of his own letters has cancelled the best evidence of all.

I also find that the cessation of intercourse was not so entire as we had all supposed. He wrote a letter to me in the latter part of 1852, and I replied to him referring to the great gap between us, but entirely in terms corresponding with our old relations.

[After thus dismissing Father Smith, Mr. Gladstone, referring to the Life of Cardinal Manning, said :] The importance of your work rather grows upon us than loses in weight with the passage of time. I do not think any of us exaggerated the importance of the Life as an event.

VOL. XL-No. 236

I remain, sincerely yours,

W. E. GLADSTONE. 0 0

In corroboration of the statement in the above letter regarding the now famous conversation in St. James's Park, which, indeed, in substance was all on his (Manning's) side,' I may fitly recite a passage from an earlier letter, dated Biarritz, the 2nd of February, 1896, written before Mr. Gladstone knew even of the existence of Father Smith, far less that he had been betrayed into the folly of misrepresenting Mr. Gladstone's letters and conversations given in the Life of Cardinal Manning. The passage is as follows:

'I have just been looking into a point which you might have emphasised more strongly the utter contradiction between the spontaneous declaration to me in St. James's Park, in June, I think, or July, 1848, and the letter he had written in March to Robert Wilberforce'

E. S. P.

1896

BHOWANI, THE CHOLERA-GODDESS

SOME EXPERIENCES IN HINDOO SANITATION

THAT an Englishman on visiting an Indian village in which cholera was raging should be able to offer the inhabitants no advice which he was certain was good and at the same time practicable, except that they should pray to Bhowáni, the Cholera-Goddess, may appear a matter for surprise to people in England. When it is further explained that the Englishman had come to the village furnished with such resources of modern science as a portable bacteriological laboratory, which included an autoclave and an immersion lens, and that he had had some experience of cholera epidemics under different conditions in India, the surprise will not be lessened; neither will it be diminished when it is learnt that Bhowáni is another form of Kali, the terrible goddess of the Thugs, those road murderers who used to appease her by offering human sacrifices. Nevertheless, this was my experience on the occasion of a visit which I made to the Balrampur district in the autumn of the year 1894, and I venture to think that an account of my experience may prove of some interest.

Balrampur is a small native state, about half as large as England, situated to the north of the River Gogra, and lying within sight of the snow-clad ranges of the Himalaya Mountains. Much of it is frequently flooded. Fever is constantly present, and cholera breaks out almost every year. No railway exists nearer than Gonda, which is twenty-six miles distant from Balrampur, the chief town of the state. One or two roads run through the district, away from which travelling is difficult, especially during the rains, when, as was my own experience, the tracts are impassable for horses and heavy going even for elephants.

My object in spending a few days' leave in this place was to see if it might not be possible to check the march of cholera by disinfecting wells. Thanks to the kindness of Colonel Anson, the Political Agent, I found myself installed in a comfortable bungalow, with the town in which cholera was present on one side, and the village of Dhusaha, in which the disease was also raging, on the other. A soldier belonging to the state had died in the compound, and one of the only two Europeans in the place had died of the same disease, in each case a

few days before I arrived. I afterwards found that two out of the three wells in use in the compound contained the microbe of cholera, and were probably responsible for these deaths.

The villagers at first objected to my putting any medicine in their wells. I regret to say that, so far as my experience goes, the first symptom of civilisation among the lower classes in India is that they develop a sort of inverted conscience, which pricks them whenever they tell the truth. In Dhusaha this influence had not yet arrived, and consequently my suggestion to put a medicine in their wells was met with a plain-spoken and unambiguous refusal. I therefore spent my first few days in the place in making bacteriological observations and in studying the beliefs and customs of the inhabitants.

The village Dhusaha consists of a collection of mud huts. There had been about 320 inhabitants, but seventy-eight had died of cholera in the epidemic that was then existing. The water supply is obtained from four shallow wells. The mud huts are constantly falling down in the rains, and mud to repair them being taken from a piece of waste land, the hollow thus formed has gradually formed a tank. Refuse is usually thrown down on the margins of the tank; hence, its water is so putrid that the inhabitants not only do not drink it, but I believe do not use it even for washing clothes. The inhabitants pointed out to me that the reason why the water in one of the wells was bad was that it was situated near the tank, and that the bad water from the tank travelled along under the ground to the well and gave a disagreeable taste to the water. I afterwards found that the water of this particular well contained no less than 7,000 microbes per cubic centimetre, and thus thoroughly deserved the character the villagers gave it.

The inhabitants are all high-caste Hindoos, mostly Brahmins. Not a single sweeper or other low-caste man was in the place. Being of high caste they only eat food which has been cooked by themselves, and this only when it is perfectly fresh. They eat no sweetmeats or other food brought from the bazaar in the neighbouring town. Their food consists almost entirely of rice and pulse, with occasionally a little unrefined sugar or dried mangoes.

But what chiefly aroused my interest was their views of cholera, and their religious observances in the presence of this scourge. If cholera breaks out in a village, the inhabitants say that it is due to Bhowáni their goddess, or to the army of Bhowáni being present in the place. They regard it as a judgment for their sins and shortcomings, and, as in other religions, they consider this evil to be a blessing in disguise. They immediately commence to propitiate the goddess by sacrificing flowers and rice. When travelling through the district the first sign of the presence of cholera which struck the eye was a small booth of grass mats surmounted by flags borne on