pendent pretensions. Every one of them, including the Archbishop, is in charge of a Vicar Apostolic, Cardinal Maddalena, titular Archbishop of Corfu, within whose diocese, it would appear, our island is situated." This has more foundation in fact than the other statements, for until the Archbishop of Corfu could find a carriage, we used daily to go together to the Council.

A leading journal, in May last, announced: "At a recent sitting of the Council, Cardinal Schwarzenberg made a speech which created even a greater uproar than the former one of Bishop Strossmayer." In this speech he defended Protestants with such vigor that "the presiding Legate, Cardinal De Angelis, interrupted the speaker, and a warm dispute between the two Cardinals ensued. The President strove repeatedly, but in vain, to silence the Cardinal with his bell; and at length the Bishops drowned his protest in a storm of hisses, in the midst of which the Cardinal was carried from the tribune, half fainting with excitement, to his seat." The Cardinal was indeed called to order, but no such tragedy was ever acted. "The Papal authorities," says another journal, "have housed the Bishops with discriminating hospitality. Those who could not be absolutely trusted have been lodged with safe companions, in the proportion of one weak brother to half-a-dozen strong." "The Jesuits have had the manipulation of the flock and have done it well." The distribution of the Bishops was made by the Government, and months before the Council opened, with as much theological manipulation as the filling of a train from Paddington. Again, we hear on May

17, that "Cardinal Bilio, the Prefect of the Deputation for Dogma, and author of the Syllabus, has passed over to the opposition." When the Holy Father heard of this defection "he was seized with faintness," and told the Cardinal "to go on a tour for the benefit of his health." The "Times" at last confessed: "To find out the truth of what is going on...... is difficult beyond conception."

...

Every day, even every hour, brings up its story, which, in nine cases out of ten, will prove an ingenious hoax." Therefore nine-tenths of these histories are labelled "hoaxes." The "Times" adds: "To pick one's way amidst these snares, without becoming the victims of delusions, is what no man can feel quite sure of." A warning of which I hope the readers of newspapers will fully avail themselves.

The "Standard," wiser than its fellows, said in February: "It is a thousand pities that English correspondents should childishly swallow cockand-bull stories of what never did and never could have occurred in the Council, and thus damage their own reputation for accuracy, as well as inferentially that of their colleagues."

Another journal damaged something more than its reputation for accuracy, when, after having announced that the Roman Clergy, that is, the Parish Priests of Rome, had, all but eight, declined to petition in favor of the definition, it was again and again called upon to publish the fact that the Roman Clergy unanimously petitioned for the definition, in a form so explicit that the Clergy of England and Scotland afterwards adopted it as their own, and presented it to the Holy Father.

The newspaper in question was never pleased to nsert the correction.

But these are flowers plucked at random.

I will now endeavor to give shortly a more connected outline of the Vatican Council, as drawn by the newspapers of the last eight or nine months; and as their representations will be one day read up as contemporaneous records for a future history, I wish to leave in the Archives of the Diocese a contemporaneous record of their utter worthlessness, and, for the most part, of their utter falsehood.

As the highest point attracts the storm, so the chief violence fell upon the head of the Vicar of Jesus Christ. On this I shall say nothing. Posterity will know Pius the Ninth; and the world already knows him now too well to remember, except with sorrow and disgust, the language of his enemies. "If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more them of his household?" No one has this privilege above the Vicar of the Master; and it is a great joy and distinct source of strength and confidence to all of the household to share this sign, which never fails to mark those who are on His side against the world.

The Council was composed, at first, of 767 Fathers. We were told that their very faces were such as to compel an enlightened correspondent, at the first sight of them, to lament "that the spiritual welfare of the world should be committed to such men."

Then, by a wonderful disposition of things, for the good, no doubt, of the human race, and, above

all, of the Church itself, the Council was divided into a majority and a minority; and, by an even more beneficent and admirable provision, it was so ordered that the theology, philosophy, science, culture, intellectual power, logical acumen, eloquence, candor, nobleness of mind, independence of spirit, courage, and elevation of character in the Council, were all to be found in the minority. The majority was naturally a Dead Sea of superstition, narrowness, shallowness, ignorance, prejudice; without theology, philosophy, science, or eloquence; gathered from "old Catholic countries;" bigoted, tyrannical, deaf to reason; with a herd of "Curial and Italian Prelates," and mere "Vicars Apostolic."

The Cardinal Presidents were men of imperious and overbearing character, who by violent ringing of bells and intemperate interruptions cut short the calm and inexorable logic of the minority.

But the conduct of the majority was still more overbearing. By violent outcries, menacing gestures, and clamorous manifestations round the tribune, they drowned the thrilling eloquence of the minority, and compelled unanswerable orators to descend.

Not satisfied with this, the majority, under the pretext that the method of conducting the discussions was imperfect, obtained from the supreme authority a new regulation, by which all liberty of discussion was finally taken from the noble few who were struggling to redeem the Council and the Church from bondage.

From that date the non-oecumenicity of the Council was no longer doubtful. Indeed, "Janus"

had told the world in many tongues, long before it met, that the Council would not be free. Nevertheless, the minority persevered with heroic courage, logic which nothing could resist, and eloquence which electrified the most insensible, until a tyrannous majority, deaf to reason and incapable of argument, cut discussion short by an arbitrary exercise of power; and so silenced the only voices nobly lifted up for science, candor and common

sense.

This done, the definition of new dogmas became inevitable, and the antagonism between the ultraromanism of a party and the progress of modern society, between independence and servility, became complete,

Such is the history of the Council written ab extra in the last nine months. I believe that every epithet I have given may be verified in the mass of extracts now before me.

A leading English journal, ten days after the Definition of the Infallibility of the Roman Pontiff, with great simplicity observed, "It is curious to compare the very general and deep interest taken by all intelligent observers in the early deliberations of the Council with the equally marked indifference to the culmination of its labors. Every rumor that came from Rome six or seven months ago was canvassed with great eagerness, even by · men who cared little for ordinary theological disputations; while the proclamation of the astonishing dogma of papal infallibility has produced in any but ecclesiastical circles little beyond a certain amount of prefunctory criticism."

The main cause of this contrast is, of course,