which the advocate of a Catholic Priest was instructed to heap upon an illustrious Catholic Prelate. But morally what is the result and aspect of the case? Setting aside its exposure of the infirmity of English Judges, the partiality of English juries, and the iniquity of English Law, what does the issue of the case show? The plaintiff's counsel represented the client as the champion of the moderate English Catholics, suffering for their opposition to the extreme views of the "ultramontane" party, headed by the Cardinal. Well, this was the battle field of that moderate party, if there is such a party, which the plaintiff instructed his counsel to make. The assailants chose the field; they selected the weapons; they entrapped the Cardinal by a newspaper attack into a newspaper defence. And then they challenged him in an action for libel, mainly upon the strength of a mistake for which he was not responsible, and which he had promptly corrected. They narrowed their cause to a miserably small issue. They made in each successive encounter a miserably small muster, they met ultimately with a miserable discomfiture. They snatched a verdict for once by evidence which was contradicted by numerous affidavits. They had declared that the clergy of England disapproved of the Hierarchy, and were not friendly to its head: but only three clerical assailants_came forward-the plaintiff, and his two witnesses, Mr. Ivers, and one other priest from a different diocese. The question in substance was whether these priests and the letters in the Ami represented the Catholic clergy of England: and the history and issue of the cause showed clearly that they did not. This was the question which the Cardinal originally came forward to settle. Like all men who have the courage to stand forth in defence of a great cause he has suffered, but he has succeeded.

Moreover, it has been made manifest that the real cause of the action was the removal from Islington. That was what the plaintiff's counsel harped upon in his truculent speeches at Guildford and at Kingston. That was what the calm one-sided Baron Platt dwelt upon with so much bitterness, until reminded that it had nothing to do with the case. That was what the jury gave damages for; the libel was so unsubstantial that it could only call for nominal damages. So well was this understood, that the moment the court of Exchequer declared that damages could on no

1855.]

The Action Against the Cardinal.

163

account be given for the removal, the plaintiff's counsel prepared to relinquish the action. Then it was not really an action for libel. Practically it was an action for the removal; and it is in this point of view that the action is of the deepest moral and historical interest. In ecclesias tical history it will have a melancholy distinction. It is, we believe, as the Editor of the Weekly Register remarked, the first instance of an action by a priest against his Bishop, for an act in the discharge of his spiritual and pastoral duty. That the removal from Islington was such an act who can question? Rightly or wrongly, it was done by the then Vicar Apostolic, as the Pastor and Bishop of the Diocese, and it was an act which related to the pastorship of a particular parish or chapel. Then the action was brought against the Bishop for a letter in which he had explained and vindicated the reasons for the removal. It is immaterial whose was the attack upon him which called for the explanation. It is enough that it was called for. It was given, and justly given. It was made the technical ground of an action for libel; in which the real complaint was as to the removal. This was then an action by an assistant-Priest or Curate, who could not possibly have canonical rights (even had canon law been established) against his Bishop, for removing him from a mission from which the senior priest had already been removed, for reasons he had well and wisely acquiesced in. Whatever the merits of the action, however, it was the first of its kind, and we hope it will be the last. The long annals of the Church present, we believe, no instance of such an action as the suit of a priest against his bishop for removing him from a mission, more especially after a submission and professed reconciliation. Is a secular tribunal under any circumstances to be resorted to by a priest in such a case? This is a grave question, to which, surely, there can be but one answer. There can be little That the removal was doubt that the action would never have been brought, but under Protestant persuasions. rightful the plaintiff had already acknowledged by his submission. If it were not so, or if the Cardinal's letter were wrongful, there was an appeal open to the Holy See. And as regards the letter, the fair and proper course even for a man indisposed to abide by a spiritual tribunal's decision was to reply to the letter in the press. But no: an action was brought, of which of course the result could

constitutional liberty cannot flourish except hand in hand with Protestantism; and we shall see that the position of his administration as well as of that of some of his predecessors naturally placed the ministry in a state of hostility towards the Church. His principal colleague, Rattazzi, is a man bred in the secret societies, thoroughly imbued with their principles and intrigues, and raised from obscurity by the influence of those detestable associations. The consequence is, that the influence of the government is against the Catholic Church. Thus, a system of public education has been established on the purely secular plan, -an irreligious press has been encouraged or tacitly allowed to corrupt the minds of the people, and the Universities of Genoa and Turin have been reduced to a low condition by the promotion to professorships of partizans of the government, mostly refugees, without learning or talent, but fully prepared to encourage latitudinarianism and infidelity. The effect of all this on the rising generation is terrible, and calculated to sow the seeds of future revolution and anarchy. But it would be a mistake to suppose that the tendency of things is toward Protestantism. It is in the direction of infidelity and the secret societies. And Protestantism does not thrive. In Piedmont the new sect is not numerous, and it is divided into two denominations, each of them represented by a newspaper, and they violently abuse and denounce each other. At Genoa no person of any ability or character, or station, has joined the Protestant ranks, and at the time when the cholera broke out, many returned to the true Church. It is, indeed, notorious that the "Evangelical" Chapel cannot be filled without distributions of money among the congregation. And on one occasion when the bag was empty, they made a disturbance and broke the benches because the usual supply of "motte," or 4d. pieces, was not forthcoming. The Bible Societies have, it is true, been at work, but their Protestant Bibles are, for the most part, sold for waste paper, or exported again, or delivered up to the clergy. These facts shew that the favourite English idea of the rapid increase of Protestantism in the Sardinian States is a delusion, which however it suits the interest of many people diligently to keep alive.

We come now to the second of the two propositions stated above. The hostility of the majority in the

Chamber of Deputies against the Church would at first sight seem to support the idea that the nation is also opposed to the Church. But the fact is, that the Chamber does not represent the opinions of the nation. It is packed, and also under the direct influence of the ministry. A system of jobbing with small places, pensions, and decorations all over the country, influences the constituencies, and the secret service money is also used for the same purposes. To these electioneering means in the hands of the executive, we must add one important circumstance.

The government have in their employés the machinery of electioneering always ready. And it can easily be brought to bear when there is need. Thus we could mention a case where the gendarmerie were sent round to canvass the voters for the ministerial candidate, and the Syndic or mayor was required to tell them that they must vote for him. But those who really represent the opinions of the majority have no such appliances and means. In a country new to constitutional government, people do not know how to oppose the government, and they fear to do so. They neglect the registry, and then they are unwilling to go to the poll. The consequence in the case adverted to above, was that the Catholic candidate who really had the majority with him, was beaten, because he could not get his men to the poll. Thus the result of the elections is, under the circumstances just described, in reality no test of the opinions of the people. Late events at Genoa corroborate and illustrate these statements. The experiment has been tried of bringing into play in that city a proper system and machinery for the management of the registry and of elections on the side of the Catholic party. The result is, that they have returned fourteen members of the town council, while the ministry have only seven. This trial of strength shows what may be done. Similar results have been obtained in like manner at Chambery, and in other places. And as the same constituency elects the members of the Chamber of Deputies, it is evident that when the majority have sufficient fair play, a different sort of Chamber will be returned, really representing the feelings and principles of the nation. And in the meanwhile we may safely say that if the majority of the present Chamber are more or less undutifully disposed towards the Church, it does not follow that the nation is of the same way of thinking, which, indeed,

any one well acquainted with the country must know not to be the case. We may admit that the ministry, and a packed Chamber of Deputies, are carrying on a struggle with the Church and the Holy See, but we deny that the nation is a party to this unholy war. This important distinction will appear more and more as we proceed. It is absolutely necessary that we should state it clearly and positively before entering on the examination of the various steps which have led the Sardinian government to its present lamentable position with regard to the Catholic Church.

Another preliminary matter remains to be dealt with. It is the key to a great part of the subject on which we are going to enter.

A chief point in the policy of the men who have held office since the abdication of King Charles Albert, has been hostility to the Church. Practical statesmen have observed, that to quarrel with the Church is a false stepun grande maladresse. And so it is; for the Emperor Napoleon I. observed, after the experience acquired by himself, that the Pope ought always to be treated as a prince who has an army of a hundred thousand men. And history shows that those who have quarrelled with the Catholic Church, have generally in the end suffered for it. Politicians attribute this to the working of a wonderful organisation, which they cannot help admiring as a great fact in the government of the world, and which they describe as a masterpiece of human wisdom: while Catholics see that such results, continued beyond the period of the duration of any civil constitution, are the work of that perennial Providence which God Himself promised to His Church. Why then did shrewd men like Azeglio, Siccardi, Rattazzi, Cavour, &c., commit the blunder of bringing the civil power into collision with the Church? The answer to this question is very important.

The time of disappointment, bitterness, and agitation which succeeded the defeat of the Sardinian armies, and the abdication of the king, naturally brought to power men who would not have held it without those exceptional and revolutionary circumstances. When the public mind became calmer, they found it difficult to maintain their position, against the wishes of a great body of the people, and those of the nobility and the clergy of the Established Church. These two important classes were intimately