give fresh guarantees for the indivisibility and inalienability of Bohemia, had resolved to be crowned King of Bohemia. The rescript reminded the Diet that the customs of the country in relation to the Monarch, regarded in conjunction with the Sovereign's relations to the whole monarchy as based on the Pragmatic Sanction, embrace not only the obligations, but also the numerous rights of the Crown, which were exercised exclusively by the Sovereign of the whole country. The Emperor renounced the exclusive exercise of these rights on the introduction of a Constitutional Government. The rescript proceeded to refer to the oft-expressed willingness of the Emperor to allow Bohemia's relations to the whole empire to be revised, and said it would be his Majesty's particular care to do justice to such well-founded claims of the Bohemians as were compatible with the preservation of the power and influence of the Monarchy. The rescript described the cardinal laws of the empire as an unshakable pillar, standing out in public law amid the numerous errors by which it had been assailed, and on the basis of which the understanding desired by all parties was alone attainable. Should the Diet decline to lend its co-operation, asked for on these principles, it would lay upon itself a serious responsibility, increasing with the development of the constitutional history of Austria. The rescript concluded with a reiterated appeal from the Emperor to the Diet to proceed with the elections to the Reichsrath without delay.

In the beginning of October the Reichsrath was prorogued, and an imperial patent was issued directing that elections for it should be held immediately in Bohemia, in virtue of the 7th paragraph of the Fundamental Law of the Empire.

When the Reichsrath met again in November an opposition address to the Emperor was so warmly applauded that Count Potocki tendered his resignation as Minister, which however was not accepted till the following January.

Amidst the inveterate difficulties with which the Government of the Cisleithan provinces of the empire was beset, Transleithan affairs, as regarded Hungary at all events, pursued their course this year with more than usual tranquillity. In May the old democratic leader of 1848, Louis Kossuth, addressed a manifesto to his fellowcountrymen, inveighing against the centralizing tendencies of the Andrassy Ministry, and particularly against the projected law relative to the organization of the departments and free towns laid before the Transleithan Reichsrath of the Minister of the Interior. But the war-credit of five million florins, demanded in the summer, was readily granted; as was the authorization for calling out the military contingent at its proper time.

Prince Gortschakoff's note of November respecting the Black Sea Treaty awoke a new source of apprehension and disquiet in the minds of Austrian statesmen. The perplexities of the Empire's future seemed to increase on every side. With Russian intrigues ready to foment those discontents of the nationalities which had

already given such trouble in every attempt at reconstructing the Empire, might it not be as well if, in conjunction with the other Powers who had been parties to the Convention of 1856, at all events with England and Turkey, the Austrian Government could rush at once into that war which sooner or later seemed inevitable? The English Government, however, was in no humour to stir in such a cause; and calm reflection might well induce the statesmanship of Beust to hang back. The financial difficulties of Austria at this time were not among her least difficulties. Her taxation, quadrupled within a few years, would bear no further extension. The War Budget of the coming year was expected to exceed that of the present year by more than five millions of florins; add to which there would be a demand of six millions for extraordinaries, and a supplementary credit of sixty millions. In English money, twelve millions sterling would be barely enough to meet the total War Budget of 1871. On the whole, Austrian public feeling was glad to escape the certain miseries and possible ruin of an armed struggle.

In the rapidly proceeding construction of a German Empire at its side, the ancient Hapsburg Imperialism had but to look on and acquiesce. Count Bismarck showed himself not unmindful of its susceptibilities, and when he addressed to Count Beust, through the Prussian Ambassador at Vienna, a long and courteous explanation of the scope and purport of the new development by which the North German Bund had allowed itself to transgress the provisoes of the Treaty of Prague, during the whole of it he delicately abstained from mentioning the title by which the new chief was to be called. The close of this communication was as follows:

"The imminent fulfilment of the German national aspirations and requirements will impart a steadiness and safety to the future development of Germany which all Europe, and more particularly our immediate neighbours, will, I trust, see not only without apprehension, but also with satisfaction. The unfettered growth of material interests which bind countries and nations together with so many ties, cannot fail to react beneficially upon our political relations. Germany and Austro-Hungary will, we are convinced, look upon each other with feelings of mutual goodwill, and unite for the friendly promotion of each other's welfare and prosperity. As soon as the fundamental treaties of the new Confederacy have been ratified by all parties, I shall enable you to communicate them officially to the Chancellor of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. I request you to read this communication to the Chancellor, and to leave a copy of it with him. "I am, &c.,

"BISMARCK."

CHAPTER V.

ROME.-Council-Declaration of Infallibility-End of Pope's Temporal Government. ITALY.-Republican Disturbances-Finances-Invasion of Roman Territory-Plebiscite-Arrival of King Victor Emmanuel at Rome.

SPAIN. Candidature for the Crown-Duel between Duke de Montpensier and Prince Enrique-Marshal Prim's choice of Prince Leopold of Hohenzollern Sigmaringen-War between France and Prussia in consequence-Prim's final choice of Duke d'Aosta-Assassination of Prim-Arrival of the new King. PORTUGAL.-Duke de Saldanha and Iberianism.

ROME.

The Ecumenical Church Council convened by Pope Pius IX. had assembled at Rome on the 8th of December, 1869. Nine hundred and twenty-one prelates had received summonses to the meeting. The actual number present amounted to 767. Early in the time a movement was made for regulating the value of the separate votes, not as units, but according to the relative population of the different dioceses. The German bishops complained of it as unfair that whereas they, sixty-seven in number, represented a population of forty-six million Catholics, the Italian Bishops, who were 276 in number, and represented only twenty-seven millions, should have individually great weight in the Council. But the suggestion was overruled. "It is an unheard-of thing," said the Civiltà Cattolica, the Jesuit journal in Rome, "to introduce this modern theory of numbers into the Church. Bishops are qualified through the holy mystery of consecration to give their votes; and since this consecration is the same every where, the votes of all must be equal: the Bishop of Frosinone, with his diocese of 70,000 souls, has as much weight as the Archbishop of Cologne, with nearly two millions."

The council-hall was a temporary apartment fitted up in a wing of the north transept of St. Peter's. Preliminary meetings were held for the first fortnight. The first public discussion took place on the 28th of December. The Bull Multiplices Inter, was issued for the purpose of regulating the order to be observed in the proceedings. It caused no small dismay among the Bishops whose opinions did not go the length of the Ultramontane programme, and who wished to have the subjects which each Bishop or party desired to bring before the Council, fully and freely debated. The remonstrance, however, which they drew up against it, was disregarded. We quote the following account of the Bull in question from an article in the North British Review, evidently written by a partisan of the minority:

"The Pope assumed to himself the sole initiative in proposing topics, and the exclusive nomination of the officers of the Council. He invited the Bishops to bring forward their own proposals, but required that they should submit them first of all to a Commission which was appointed by himself, and consisted half of Italians. If

any proposal was allowed to pass by this Commission, it had still to obtain the sanction of the Pope, who could therefore exclude at will any topic, even if the whole Council wished to discuss it. Four elective Commissions were to mediate between the Council and the Pope. When a decree had been discussed and opposed, it was to be referred, together with the amendments, to one of these Commissions, where it was to be reconsidered, with the aid of divines. When it came back from the Commission with corrections and remarks, it was to be put to the vote without further debate. What the Council discussed was to be the work of unknown divines. What it voted was to be the work of a majority in a Commission of twenty-four. It was in the election of these Commissions that the episcopate obtained the chance of influencing the formation of its decrees. But the Papal theologians retained their predominance, for they might be summoned to defend or alter their work in the Commission, from which the Bishops who had spoken or proposed amendments were excluded. Practically, the right of initiative was the deciding point. Even if the first regulation had remained in force, the bishops could never have recovered the surprises, and the difficulty of preparing for unforeseen debates. The regulation ultimately broke down under the mistake of allowing the decree to be debated only once, and that in its crude state, as it came from the hands of the divines. The authors of the measure had not contemplated any real discussion. It was so unlike the way in which business was conducted at Trent, where the right of the Episcopate was formally asserted, where the envoys were consulted, and the bishops discussed the questions in several groups before the general congregations, that the printed text of the Tridentine Regulation was rigidly suppressed. It was further provided that the reports of the speeches should not be communicated to the bishops; and the strictest secrecy was enjoined on all concerning the business of the Council. The bishops, being under no obligation to observe this rule, were afterwards informed that it bound them under grievous sin."

In the first public session of the Council, December 28, the subject debated was a long dogmatic decree, just issued, in which the special opinions, theological, biblical, and philosophical, of the party now dominant at Rome were proposed for ratification. The opposition to this decree, as it stood, was vigorous and unexpectedly effective; two speakers in particular distinguishing themselves, the Bishop of Grenoble, and Strossmayer, Bishop of the Croatian diocese of Diakovar. The next public session of the Council was fixed for the 6th of January.

At the end of December Cardinal Reisach, Archbishop of Munich, who had been first selected as President, died, and in his place was appointed Cardinal de Angelis. He was not very well suited to the exigencies of his post, and the real management fell into the hands of Cardinal Capalti and Cardinal Bilio, neither of them reputed to belong to the extreme party, but not backward, as it proved, to be

pushed in the direction of that party, when the majority took the initiative out of their hands.

Our history for the year 1870 begins, then, on the Feast of the Epiphany, when the Council was collected in the hall of St. Peter's for its second public session. At this time the chief leaders of the Liberal opposition were known to be Cardinal Schwarzenberg, Archbishop of Prague, Dupanloup, Bishop of Orleans, Maret, Bishop of Sura, and Darboy, Archbishop of Paris. There had been a preliminary trial of strength in December, on occasion of the election of the Commission on Dogma. Owing to some mismanagement of their tactics on the part of the French Liberals, the Court party, seemed pretty well to have routed their antagonists. However, the Archbishop of Paris afterwards rallied a force around him, which, acting side by side with the Austro-German clique under Cardinal Schwarzenberg, helped to show a formidable opposition front. Unfortunately, in this opposition their forces were somewhat scattered, owing to their distinct nationalities. The Germans and French had little real intercourse, and neither of them served as a nucleus for their individual sympathizers among other communions. An international centre was attempted by some of the leading men, over which Cardinal Rauscher, Archbishop of Vienna, presided; but though strong in talent, this meeting was too varied in its traditions and shades of opinion to be strong in will.

With elements of possible discord such as these, the Pope and his advisers wished to deal cautiously; and when it became evident that the party which had all along objected to the definition of Infallibility were now haunted by a fear that the dogma was intended to be carried over their heads, on the first favourable opportunity, by sudden "acclamation" in the Council, they did all that was possible to allay the apprehension. It was insinuated from the highest quarters that, after all, no special dogmatic definition was intended that the Pope desired nothing more than the authoritative confirmation of postulates to which the faithful had already, by silent submission, given their consent; as, for instance, of that 23rd article of the Syllabus of 1864 which pronounced condemnation on the opinion that Roman Pontiffs had ever exceeded the just bounds of their authority, in faith, in politics, or in morals.

At the public session of the 6th of January, the first proceeding was the formal presentation by the Pope and each of the assembled Bishops, of a written profession of the Catholic Faith. Then several decrees were discussed, of which the principal were a decree on the duties of the Episcopate and one on the Catechism. The decree on Dogma, which had provoked the discussion of the 28th December, was withdrawn, and referred to the Commission on Doctrine. At this juncture it was that the majority in the Council resolved to push on the declaration of Infallibility, which in their eyes was the main business to be carried out by this important Assembly of the Church Catholic, and which seemed in danger of being sacrificed to the scruples of the French and German opposition prelates. Accord

S