Front Page Titles (by Subject) To the Right Hon. W. E. Gladstone - Selections from the Correspondence of the First Lord Acton, Vol. I (Cardinal Newman, Lady Blennerhassett, W.E. Gladstone)
Return to Title Page for Selections from the Correspondence of the First Lord Acton, Vol. I (Cardinal Newman, Lady Blennerhassett, W.E. Gladstone)
The Online Library of Liberty
A project of Liberty Fund, Inc.
Search this Title:
To the Right Hon. W. E. Gladstone - John Emerich Edward Dalberg, Lord Acton, Selections from the Correspondence of the First Lord Acton, Vol. I (Cardinal Newman, Lady Blennerhassett, W.E. Gladstone) 
Selections from the Correspondence of the First Lord Acton, edited with and Introduction by John Neville Figgis and Renald Vere Laurence. Vol. I Correspondence with Cardinal Newman, Lady Blennerhassett, W.E. Gladstone and Others (London: Longmans, Gree and Co., 1917).
About Liberty Fund:
Liberty Fund, Inc. is a private, educational foundation established to encourage the study of the ideal of a society of free and responsible individuals.
The text is in the public domain.
Fair use statement:
This material is put online to further the educational goals of Liberty Fund, Inc. Unless otherwise stated in the Copyright Information section above, this material may be used freely for educational and academic purposes. It may not be used in any way for profit.
To the Right Hon. W. E. Gladstone
74 Via della Croce,Nov. 24.
My dear Mr. Gladstone,—
I have been obliged to wait for a safe opportunity to write to you on one of the topics touched upon in your letter.
Everything is prepared here for the proclamation of Papal Infallibility, and the plan of operations is already laid down, in a way which shows an attentive study of Sarpi’s History of the Council of Trent. They are sure of a large majority.
For some time hopes were entertained that it would be possible to gain the object by a sort of surprise. The zealous conformity of the bishops had been fully tested, and there was a widely spread ignorance as well as much indifference and apathy to be relied on among the laity. This plan broke down when the alarm began to be sounded at Munich and the Bavarian Government made itself the organ of the Faculty of Theology. In June the Pope already declared that he had no hand in the Civilta, and the Declaration of the German bishops at Fulda accidentally coinciding with the appearance of Janus1 caused a great fear. About the same time Dupanloup made a journey in Germany and Switzerland, and it was announced that he had come to an understanding with a great mass of opposing bishops. Soon after, Maret’s book2 was published. From that time the Court of Rome became anxious to conceal its design, and to make it appear that there was no such project in existence. This language is still held, and they have considered whether it would be better to get the substance in another form or to commit the bishops by private assurances, without insisting on a formal decree. All these subterfuges will be vehemently opposed by those bishops who have been ardent apostles of the doctrine in their own countries.
No bishop has hitherto declared publicly that he rejects the doctrine as erroneous, and the opposition intends to take its stand on the ground of expediency. At present a majority of French, German, and Austrian bishops mean to take that line. Some, no doubt, will give way under the influences of Rome; and the rest will find their position very difficult to defend. It will be very easy to drive a wedge between those who deny the expediency of the decree and those who deny the truth of the doctrine. If the Court of Rome is defeated, it can only be by men of principle and of science.
This position has been occupied, so far, by one man only, and that is Janus. You have no doubt recognised the same inspiring mind in the articles of the Allgemeine Zeitung which were reproduced in the Saturday, in the answer of the Munich divines,1 in the letter2 of Hohenlohe3 and the recall of the Bavarian Minister at Rome, in the Pope and the Council, and in the little pamphlet on Infallibility which has since appeared.
I thought the book of Janus very important because it alters the position of the Catholics towards those who are not in communion with Rome, and I don’t know any book from which I have learned so much. But it seemed to me very insufficient for the purpose of arresting the Roman current and projecting a great reform. For that I think it is necessary to trace the growth of many errors besides that of Infallibility, to bring down the inquiry strictly to the present time, and to make a clear and complete confession of all that it behoves a pure Catholicism to renounce. I have good hopes that such a book will be written and published before Easter. It will not influence Rome; but it cannot fail to act widely and deeply on public opinion in Europe.
Dupanloup intends to make use of the English argument both in reference to Union, and, I hope, in respect of the social and political danger to the Catholic subjects of the Queen of any measure which would weaken their defenders and strengthen, and even justify, as well as exasperate their enemies. In all this he will be contradicted by Manning, who will make the most of his acquaintance with you, and will give all manner of assurances that the Irish and English Catholics have much to gain and nothing to lose by the establishment of his favourite doctrines. If you should think it not impolitic to allow your own opinion on this, the secular side of the question at least, to be known, in case of need, authentically to the bishops, who would know how to use it properly, you might, I think, exercise a very considerable influence at a critical moment. I hope there will be something of the sort in Russell’s instructions. A letter from yourself, proceeding from the existing condition of things in the United Kingdom, would be still more efficacious. If you don’t think it proper to write it, I am sure you do not underestimate the magnitude of the approaching crisis for all Christendom, or the stress of the feelings with which I am writing.—Believe me, very truly yours,
J. D. Acton.
Pal Chig., 6 Dec. ’69.
My dear Acton,—
Mr. Gladstone desires me telegraphically to let you know that you may use the strongest language you think fit respecting his opinion on the subject about which you desire it should be known.
Mr. Gladstone will write by early opportunity.
I fear this may reach you too late, for instead of reaching Rome on the first of December we only arrived late last night, having been detained by snow between Piacenza and Parma, and again by the state of my son’s health and my wife’s anxiety about him.
I hope to call on you to-day or to-morrow, to congratulate you on Her Majesty’s acknowledgment of your value and merits.—Sincerely yours,
Rome,Dec. 19, 1869.
My dear Mr. Gladstone,—
Your most welcome letter, received by the courier, supplies the desired weapon. I shall keep it in reserve for the contingency with a view to which you wrote, but I shall be able at once to make effective use of your remarks on the direct influence of Ultramontanism on the prospects of educational legislation.
All my anticipations fell short of the reality, so far as the intentions and preparations of the Court of Rome are concerned. A resolute attempt is being made to restore all that is most obnoxious, all that has been most pernicious, in the maxims and the policy of the Popes. The claim to Infallibility forces them to accept the responsibility of the most monstrous words and deeds, and they seek to anticipate objections by their boldness in acknowledging the worst of their traditions. A Bull published on Friday virtually revives the Bull In Coena Domini, which has slumbered since Ganganelli. It will be explained away on the plea that it contains nothing new. I hope you will find time to read it. I cannot understand the position of a Liberal Ministry in France which should continue to buttress and patronise an authority so misused.
There is reason to believe that another Bull is in preparation directly condemning the scientific as this does the liberal element in the Church.
The Congregation De Fide, which is to report on the dogmatic question, contains no name taken from the list of the opposition.
A conjuncture is very probably approaching where the French Government will no longer enjoy the undivided support of the Episcopate in its Roman policy.
I cannot estimate the opposition higher than 200. That number will be reduced, if they allow the question of Dogma to be separated from the question of expediency, to a score or two. If they manage to hold together, and conduct their resistance in such a way as to make each section of their party seek the help of the other, they could at least prevent the fatal decree and give the impulse to a great reaction. But their force is likely to be exhausted rather than confirmed by such a victory, and they would probably give their consent to those secondary decrees which would be the consequence and object of Papal Infallibility, and its alternative and compensation if it is rejected. One of the most eminent prelates in Europe said to me the other day, that he had come to Rome with little hope and great fear, but that he had found things far worse than he had expected.
The traveller who will post this letter in Germany is just starting, and I must close it. Lord Romilly has written to me, with the sanction of the Treasury, about materials for English history in the Roman archives. I hesitate, at this moment, to take any step which would involve the English Government in obligations.—I remain, yours very sincerely,
Rome,January 1, 1870.
My dear Mr. Gladstone,—
The events at Paris, coincident with the change in the position of things at Rome, suggest a possibility of exercising some influence on the progress of the Council. Each step taken by the Roman Court has added to the danger and increased the need for prudent and intelligent action on the part of the States.
The Regulations which were the first document issued, assumed to the Pope the right of making decrees and defining dogmas, and left to the Council only the function of approving. It has not even a right to propose questions for its own consideration, as nothing can be submitted to the Council without the permission of a Committee representing the Pope. Only eighteen French bishops signed a remonstrance against these arrangements.
On the 30th of December a bishop, Strossmayer, objected to the title of a decree, and to the formula which excluded the Episcopate from all real share in the defining authority, and he was stopped by one of the presiding Cardinals, Capalti,1 on the ground that this point had been settled by the Regulations. He passed to another topic and the other bishops submitted in silence.
The position therefore is this, that the Pope alone proposes decrees, that he can refuse his sanction to any act of the Council, that the Council cannot prevent, invalidate, or rescind, any act of his. This is now no longer merely a claim of the Roman Court: it has been accepted and implicitly acknowledged by the Council. The sole legislative authority has been abandoned to the Pope. It includes the right of issuing dogmatic decrees, and involves the possession of all the infallibility which the Church claims.
This is not distinct or final, but it is an important step towards the intended dogma, and an indication of the amount of resisting power among the bishops.
The second manifestation of policy was the Constitution reciting the excommunications directed against the spirit of civilised governments. It is nothing less than a revival of the Bull In Coena Domini,1 which was dropped by Ganganelli2 when he suppressed the Jesuits, and which naturally appears again, now that the Jesuits are in power. Everything is done to mollify foreign Powers, and especially France, on the ground that States having a Concordat are exempt from these censures, which is utterly untrue and cannot be said officially.
The Irish bishops wish to have the Constitution modified in this particular, that they shall have authority to absolve in all the reserved cases; by which, in fact, they would accept the principle and incur the complicity. They will hardly protest, as it is not submitted to the Council, but is an independent, sovereign act of the Papacy.
Thirdly, a paper was distributed, containing censures upon a great number of opinions. It anathematises those who deny several of the fundamental doctrines of Christianity, but it includes a condemnation of secular science. It declares that human science cannot be independent of divine Revelation, and explains this by saying that science has no certainty and no authority apart from that of the Church and her organs. It follows that the opinions received and approved here may lawfully be supported by censures against any disturbing conclusions of historical or physical science.
This would revive the action of the Index in its extreme form, not only against opinions, but against mathematical discoveries and historical documents.
In these three papers the papal absolutism reveals itself completely, in its hostility to the rights of the Church, of the State, and of the intellect. We have to meet an organised conspiracy to establish a power which would be the most formidable enemy of liberty as well as of science throughout the world.
It can only be met and defeated through the Episcopate, and the Episcopate is exceedingly helpless.
There is indeed a considerable minority opposed to the Papal Infallibility, and to the other enormous claims of Rome, and its numbers have been increasing up to the present time. There are even signs of organisation. An international committee has been appointed, consisting of the most enlightened bishops of France, Germany, and America. They have concerted a plan of action in case of an attempt to proclaim the Dogma by acclamation; and they have brought their numbers to something like two hundred. The two first discussions, on Tuesday and Thursday, were entirely occupied by speakers of this party. To the surprise of everybody several Italians were amongst them. I have before me now the notes made for Menabrea on the character and probable opinions of the Italian bishops, and they are not entirely unfavourable.
It is not likely that the opposition will add further to its numbers. The disintegrating influences will soon begin to tell. The most ardent opponents feel their helplessness, and look for encouragement to the laity. The Constitution, containing so many political censures, awakened hopes that the Governments at home would be roused from their apathy and that the opposition would have something to fall back upon. This idea has begun to show itself lately in several unexpected quarters. It was expressed to me by one of the most conspicuous and moderate of the Prussian prelates. These men find themselves abandoned to the wiles and threats of Rome. All that hope and fear can do will be done to break down their resistance, and it is sustained by no human inducements whatever. I know that one of those who showed courage and vigour in the opening debate, on the 28th, has since complained that he is left to his fate, that he is a ruined man.
The result of the first two days of discussion has been to make it certain and notorious that the elements of a real and sincere opposition exist, an opposition which is worth supporting, which is almost sure to prevail if it is supported, and almost sure to be crushed if it is not. The position is therefore essentially altered, since Hohenlohe’s proposal fell to the ground, and the policy of indifference was adopted by the Powers.
That policy was adopted by other States in consequence of the determination of the French Government to take no part, and to send no ambassador. Prussia, Bavaria, Portugal, and, I presume, other States, waited to follow the example of France. The Emperor put himself in communication with the bishops who were likely to exercise influence at the Council, even with some who are unfriendly to the Empire, such as Dupanloup, and showed them clearly what his hopes and wishes were. Maret saw him also, and was at one time confident that an ambassador would be sent. But the Prince de la Tour d’Auvergne,1 advised by M. Armand, late Secretary at Rome, and a strong partisan, appears to have prevented it. M. Ollivier2 is a man of another stamp. He has seriously studied religious questions, and entertains views on the old French Church, and the Concordat which destroyed it, which he will very probably keep secret for some time. But his views on the Roman question are known, and he has lately confided to Nigra3 his sentiments regarding the French occupation. It will certainly not be his own wish to follow in this respect the line of his predecessors. He will have the support of at least half the French Episcopate if he abandons it. At this moment Dupanloup relies on about forty, of near seventy who are in Rome. When the crisis comes there will not be quite so many. But it may come in such a shape that Darboy,1 Dupanloup, and their friends will have to look for the aid which the State alone can give. The idea of proclaiming the Pope infallible by acclamation is not given up, and if the Roman party attempts to carry it by a mere vote and to crush the minority, few bishops will dare to risk a schism. They will know that they can protest without fear of isolation and schism, if they are backed by their Government. The ablest and most popular of the French bishops will meet the new minister half-way if he gives them the least encouragement. I know that they have been considering what their position would be if they had to leave the Council, with a public protest.
The States, at present, are exerting little or no influence. The Austro-Hungarian Episcopate, indeed, is nearly united, but not by reason of any advice from the ambassador, who has little weight, or from Beust,2 who seems to have no ideas about the Council, either from ignorance of Catholic matters or from natural levity. Spain is unrepresented at Rome. The Prussian Minister is a Protestant, and on that account, probably, the few Prussian bishops do not bestow their confidence on him. One of them has admitted this to me, and both Baron Arnim3 and other members of the Legation have spoken of it to me with much regret and annoyance. During the summer Arnim advised Bismarck to send an ambassador to the Council, and he is still strongly of the same opinion, although he would be, to some extent, eclipsed. The experience of the last few weeks has confirmed his original idea. It would certainly be satisfactory to him and to his Government, which fully entered into his view in the summer, if the example of France made it possible to send an ambassador for Germany. As Bavaria would unite in accrediting the same ambassador, there would even be a slight point gained in the existence of one representative for all extra-Austrian Germany. Count Lavradio1 arrived with credentials as ambassador for the Council, but he put them in his pocket, and declared himself only a Minister when he found what the other Powers have done. Spain, of course, will be guided by the consideration whether it would or would not be convenient to reopen its embassy here under cover of the Council.
The question will be a very anxious one for Italy. Menabrea2 was not prepared with any definite plan of action for the Council. The new Ministers, Lanza and Sella, are both impatient of Church questions, and have never attended to the Roman difficulty. It is left entirely to the Foreign Secretary, Visconti Venosta. He has already arranged with Lanza that he shall be free to use what means he can to assist the better portion of the bishops. Their property is still in the hands of the Government, and their position is very trying and unsettled. Arrangements will be made for regulating their affairs as speedily and as favourably as possible, giving the preference to those who best deserve it. There is even some idea of giving back the unsold property of the Church, to be administered by lay trustees. But this is a legislative, not an administrative question, and cannot be undertaken without interference of Parliament. I don’t even know what Visconti thinks of the plan. It has much occupied his Segretario Generale, Albert Blanc. But I know that Visconti is alive to the importance of doing something for the Council. Lavradio has charge of Italian interests here, and the Pope has said something to him of his wish to reopen negotiations on ecclesiastical questions. If they send an envoy for the Council, the probable failure or at least delay of his negotiations with the Vatican would not so much matter. By sending him for the Council they would avoid the affront or awkwardness of having no Nuncio in return. And, in appearance, the mission would have a conciliatory effect, and might be a step towards an understanding. There will be a great difficulty about the title of the sovereign to be represented; but that alone will hardly prevent the sending of an Italian ambassador.
It is the French, not the Italian, whom they will be afraid of at Rome. The change of Ministry has already caused much alarm, though the ambassador Banneville declares that there will be no change of policy. I am told, confidentially, that nobody would do better, or would be less distasteful than Rouher. If the new Ministry makes some general profession of an intention to bring about the recall of the French troops, the presence of Rouher would have a positively reassuring effect upon the Court as well as the Council. Indeed any ambassador to the Council would be a new security, for the time. Yet I can imagine that a time may come when Dupanloup himself will look for the departure of the French as the way to save the Church.
My very gloomy view of the prospects which are before us is not the effect of a momentary change for the worse. On the contrary, the opposition are jubilant to-day. Cardinal Rauscher,1 who was supposed to be thoroughly Roman, has circulated a paper against Papal Infallibility, and led the attack on Tuesday. He was supported by Italian prelates. Two whole days have been entirely occupied with speeches against the decrees proposed in the name of the Pope, and there are still eighteen speakers to be heard on both sides of the same question. Time has been gained for the preparation of a paper which the bishops have asked me to obtain from Germany, and which they think will be decisive. The arrival of Hefele, the new bishop of Rottenburg, with whom no Roman divine will bear comparison for a moment, is expected daily, and the bravest of the bishops, the Croatian, Strossmayer,1 has made a very great impression by his eloquence. I live almost entirely with the opposition, and seeing and hearing what I do, and knowing the bishops as I have learned to know them before and since coming here, I am bound to say that I do not believe that the means of preventing the worst excess exist within the Council. In the case of almost every bishop it would be possible to point out the way in which his position may be forced or turned. The only invincible opponent is the man who is prepared, in extremity, to defy excommunication, that is, who is as sure of the fallibility of the Pope as of revealed truth. Excepting Strossmayer and perhaps Hefele, I don’t know of such a man among the bishops; and some of the strongest admit that they will accept what they do not succeed in preventing. It is to give these men strength and courage that the help of the State is needed. The time seems to have arrived when the counsel of England, or of other Powers speaking in concert with England, would effect the necessary change in the policy of France. I understand that the Emperor hesitated, and was alarmed at finding that some prelates deemed hostile to the Empire—Bonnechose, for instance—recommended the sending of an extraordinary envoy, while some of his own friends gave opposite advice. Lavalette,2 I am told, was not favourable to the proposal. If anything is done it would probably be better that it should be done at Paris, or at least not through Lavalette alone.
I now hear that the international Committee has been dissolved by the Pope, as savouring of clubs and revolution; and that the Regulations will be made stricter, so as to take away all liberty of speech.
If you do not altogether reject the idea even of indirect action, the time has unmistakably arrived when it is most likely to take effect,—I remain, yours very sincerely,
Necessary precautions have delayed this letter till to-day, the 4th. Twenty-five Germans have protested, like the French, and no addition to the Regulations has yet been made public. On the third day of debate the opposition continued to speak, and an Eastern Patriarch pronounced against all innovation, in the name of the Oriental Christians.
My dear Lord Acton,—
I take the opportunity of a messenger from the Foreign Office to write a few lines.
My answer to your appeal was written on the instant, and I stated that which first occurred to me, namely, the additional difficulties which the rampancy of Ultramontanism would put in the way of our passing measures of public Education which should be equitable and not otherwise than favourable to religion.
But in truth this was only a specimen. There is the Land Bill to be settled, and there are the wings of the Church Bill: one the measure relating to Loans for Building, the other having reference to the Ecclesiastical Titles Act. Even the first will be further poisoned, and either or both of the two last may become the subject of fierce and distracting controversy so as to impede our winding up the great chapter of account between the State and not the Roman Church or Priesthood but the people of Ireland.
The truth is that Ultramontanism is an anti-social power, and never has it more undisguisedly assumed that character than in the Syllabus.
Of all the Prelates at Rome none have a finer opportunity, to none is a more crucial test now applied, than to those of the United States. For if there, where there is nothing of covenant, of restraint, or of equivalents between the Church and the State, the propositions of the Syllabus are still to have the countenance of the Episcopate, it becomes really a little difficult to maintain in argument the civil right of such persons to toleration, however conclusive is the argument of policy in favour of granting it.
I can hardly bring myself to speculate or care on what particular day the foregone conclusion is to be finally adopted. My grief is sincere and deep, but it is at the whole thing, so ruinous in its consequences as they concern Faith.
In my view the size of the minority, though important, is not nearly so important as the question whether there will be a minority at all. Whatever its numbers, if formed of good men, it will be a nucleus for the future, and will have an immense moral force even at the present moment, a moral force sufficient perhaps to avert much of the mischief which the acts of the majority would naturally entail. For this I shall watch with intense interest.—Believe me, most sincerely yours,
W. E. Gladstone.
Rome,January 8, 1870.
My dear Mr. Gladstone,—
You will have heard some days before this can reach you of the strange plan for the abdication of the Pope. I believe he has thought of it for some time, but its execution, of course, will depend on several contingencies. If the Council does not prosper, he will be unwilling to close his career in the midst of so great a failure. And if he cannot fill all the vacant hats, he will not feel so sure of controlling the election. This may be a serious difficulty. He can hardly appoint any Cardinals as long as he refuses the Archbishop of Paris. It would be dangerous to defy the Emperor in that way just before a Conclave where he exercises a protectorate and a veto. Probably if the plan is announced in the papers before it is ripe, it will be denied and abandoned. I am anxious to keep this weapon in my hands for use in case of necessity. If it becomes known, it will greatly diminish the influence of the Pope over the bishops, as it is, in fact, a conspiracy against the Council, and an attempt to preserve the party now in power from the natural vicissitudes of elective monarchy. All the suppressed expectant jealousies would be vigorously aroused.
There are many curious points of analogy between the Pope and Lewis XVI, between what is passing now and what passed in the days of the National and the Legislative Assemblies. The discovery of this design before the time would have some effects like the flight to Varennes.
But there is one contingency in which they may be tempted to make it known themselves much sooner than they could wish. If the new Ministry in France1 show any signs of wishing to recall the troops, at some indefinite but not distant period, or at the death of Pius IX, to whom personally the Emperor is so deeply committed, then they may reply by playing this card almost at once. An idea so much like it presented itself at Paris last summer, that the full significance would be keenly appreciated in France; and the Emperor might not find it easy to disengage himself when he expects to do so.
There is no doubt this consideration also, that the Infallibilist party would make great capital out of the Pope’s resolution to carry the Dogma for the see and not for himself, to abdicate as soon as he has obtained it.
For these reasons it may be right that you should warn the French Government. Their embassy here is curiously ill informed, and probably does not enjoy the confidence of Ollivier and Daru. They might not believe it if we were to send it in that way. And as the French are jealous of Russell, it would be in your power to refer to other sources of information.
It may happen at any time that I may publish the design, after consultation with the best of the bishops.
Although our information is good, it would of course be enough, should you think it right to communicate with France, to warn them of this possible answer to their policy. Meantime, I have tried to prevent the news getting to Paris, until you have considered its bearings. But I could not prevent its being sent to Munich.
The time is not come for Dupanloup and the others to accept a policy hostile to the temporal power, but it will come soon.
I shall soon have occasion to use your letter. Count Apponyi, who is here on leave, and assures me of his hearty sympathy with our cause, tells me that a priest of some note, who is intimate with Manning, told him in London that you quite agree with the Syllabus, which the credulous diplomatist began to read over again, with much surprise.
The bishops are taking an active and open initiative for Infallibility, and I hope that those whom I see will take some strong immediate step the other way. If not, the topic of my last letter gains seriously in importance.
Pusey’s new book1 may do some good, if anybody has patience to read it. I have distributed several copies.
In haste, to catch the Prussian Courier.—I remain, most truly yours,
Rome,February 2, 1870.
My dear Mr. Gladstone,—
I will not take up your time, at the eve of the opening of Parliament, longer than I can help. Your two letters are invaluable weapons in our hands for the purpose of awakening bishops to the terrible realities of the position, and there has been a very remarkable progress among them in the right direction. At the same time they are becoming aware that they can only save the Church at the expense of the papacy. The Pope is now so openly identified with the scheme for promoting the new Dogma that the failure will involve a very serious loss to the authority and consideration of Rome. Therefore, although the opposition has gone on increasing in numbers and in determination, there are many who would still shrink from the only measure that can ensure victory, a public protest in Rome and an appeal to the Church among the nations. The able and courageous men who lead the party, Darboy and Strossmayer, have forced their colleagues to look that bitter alternative plainly in the face. It is doubtful at this moment whether they would be supported by sufficient numbers in taking such a step, and they must at any rate reserve it for a decisive occasion.
The mass of the opposition would be relieved if the crisis is avoided through some event that would interrupt the Council or change all the chief conditions. Within the last few days the resolution of the French Government to recall the troops in the event of the Dogma being carried, has become known here. Everything will be done to diminish the effect of this announcement. There will be comfort in the letters of the Nuncio, and some hope that the Ministry may fall. Probably they will try to frighten the French with the bugbear of Malta. If they are still able to do so, if that offer is still open, it will have an injurious and unfair effect on the course of things in the Council and in Italy. It very nearly frustrates the new policy which the Ollivier Ministry has adopted in concert with England, and it increases enormously the difficulty, and removes the prospect of an understanding between Rome and Italy, which is absolutely necessary for the restoration of confidence and financial prosperity in the Kingdom. The language of many leading Italian prelates in the Council has afforded a good opportunity for the Government to take up a more conciliatory position towards them, and to obtain the support of a considerable part of the Episcopate. This may lead to very important consequences if the Court of Rome is compelled to make terms.
The Maltese refuge would seriously disturb all these favourable conditions.
Used as a threat, it will prolong the occupation, through the inevitable jealousy of France, and render nugatory all conciliatory measures of the Italian Government. The actual flight of the Pope would break up the Council, either after a fatal vote by the majority, or else without any definite success of the minority.
But if things are allowed to go on, with the certainty that, in case of the Dogma being defined, the Pope will be left to the care of the Italians and the protesting bishops will have the support of France, then, I do not doubt, the better part of the Church will prevail, and there will be a vast change in religious prospects.
M. Daru’s1 recent conversation with Lord Lyons on the Roman question seems almost to involve the request that you should join in giving efficacy to the threat of recalling the troops.—I remain, yours very sincerely,
Rome,February 16, 1870.
My dear Mr. Gladstone,—
The opinion which I expressed to you many weeks ago, that the opposition would prevail with aid from the European Powers, and would fail without it, has been adopted by the leading bishops of the party. I am writing now not only with their knowledge, but at their express and most urgent request, renewed several times during the last week. It is better that I should mention no names; but Lord Granville will easily remember one bishop with whom I have long been on intimate terms.
The habit of exercising absolute authority, and the habit of submitting to it, have reached such a point in the Catholic Church that the prophecy in the last pages of Janus is very nearly realised. There is very little hope that the Council, left to itself, will have sufficient vigour and consistency to resist the pressure of the Court. There is a determined minority, but it is so small that it will be overwhelmed if it stands alone. It carries with it a considerable group of undecided, perplexed, and ignorant men, who will resist only up to a certain point. They are impressed with the discouraging belief that the Governments abandon them, and that public opinion, except in part of Germany, is indifferent to their struggle. Rome is determined to carry things to extremity, and it is certain that many of the opposing bishops are prepared to yield before coming to extremity. Efforts are being made by them to check the demonstrations which Döllinger has provoked, and the action of France has hardly been perceptible.
The question of Infallibility will be brought forward shortly. Yesterday and to-day French bishops urged that it should be introduced immediately, as it was the only question they were brought here to decide.
The language of the French Government has been clear enough, but its effect has been weakened by the Nuncio at Paris, by the ambassador here, and by the belief that there is no understanding between France and Italy as to the settlement of the Roman question.
Two days ago a definite message was sent by the Emperor to Cardinal Antonelli, in which the Emperor declared that he could not afford to have a schism in France where all the employé class, all the literary class, and even the Faubourg St. Germain are against the Infallibility of the Pope. He added that it would dissolve all the engagements existing between France and Rome. They are unmoved by these threats, because they expect to obtain an apparent unanimity among the bishops, and they think that if the bishops yield the rest will follow.
Hitherto, it appears, the French Government have shared this opinion. Seeing at the head of the opposition men notorious as defenders of the Syllabus and agitators against the recall of the French troops, they must have suspected that they would not resist to the uttermost the proposal to sanction and dogmatise propositions which scarcely go further than the Syllabus, and that they would not support the Emperor in a course of action adverse to the temporal power. That such a man as the Bishop of Orleans should be really willing to sacrifice the Roman State, which he has so warmly defended, out of aversion for the ideas of the Syllabus, which he has defended not less warmly, implies so vast a change that they might reasonably hesitate.
But the change has really occurred, and the proof will be in the hands of the French Government before this reaches you. I have induced the bishop alluded to at the beginning of my letter to commit himself explicitly, and I forwarded yesterday to M. Daru a paper drawn up under the bishop’s eye exposing the anti-social character and the political danger of the Schema de Ecclesia. The bishop says quite truly that it only requires to be understood in order to rouse the indignation and anger of every Government in Europe. For the Canons which have been published are the most innocent part of the Schema. It makes civil legislation on all points of contract, marriage, education, clerical immunities, mortmain, even on many questions of taxation and Common Law, subject to the legislation of the Church, which would be simply the arbitrary will of the Pope. Most assuredly no man accepting such a code could be a loyal subject, or fit for the enjoyment of political privileges. In this sense the French bishops have written to the French Government, and that is what they ask me to write to you.
They see no human remedy for this peril other than the intervention of the Powers.
They say that as long as the question at issue was Infallibility, which is a question of dogmatic theology and only indirectly dangerous to society, the abstention of the Governments might be justified. But it is not now the only question, and the Schema de Ecclesia, to be followed by a yet extremer Schema de Romano Pontifice, proves what the object, what the consequence of exalting the attributes of the Papacy would be for the civilised world. They therefore desire, through me, to make a direct appeal to the Government of the Queen. They believe that you cannot have read the extracts published by the German press without understanding as they do the purport and the peril of the measures proposed to the Council by the Pope. They believe that you are as much interested as Catholic States can be in preventing the results that would ensue, and that you are in a position to act in the matter without offending susceptibilities. They do not wish to give to their appeal the undue form of actual suggestions. But I can say that the idea in their minds is that England should urge the Great Powers to take united action, in the shape of a joint—or identical—note upon the subject of the new Schema, and of the Dogma which would include it. Of course this implies the hope that a new settlement will be come to with Italy, as to the temporal power—a settlement which cannot well be entirely contingent on the result of the Council.
I have the best reason to believe that Prussia would be willing to join in such a step as this; though the co-operation of Bavaria might not now be obtainable. Austria has been, as far as its Government is concerned, an impediment to our cause. The Emperor Napoleon would have great influence on the Court of Vienna, and they would only have to be invited to support their own Episcopate.
The thing could probably be done by means of a good understanding between England and France; more especially as France does not profess to wish that you should act directly on the Court of Rome.
The Archbishop of Paris is not one of those who are in the secret of this appeal. His relations with the Emperor prevented me from consulting him upon it. Whatever may be his political sentiments in the matter, I am able to say positively that, in the interest of the Council, he substantially agrees.—I remain, dear Mr. Gladstone, very faithfully yours,1
11 Carlton House Terrace, S.W.,
My dear Lord Acton,—
I have waited for an opportunity to answer by messenger your letter of the 16th. Immediately on its arrival I sent it to Lord Clarendon. He has had every desire to forward your views though with little hope of effecting any considerable result. In truth I am myself sorrowfully conscious that it is in our power to do little or nothing with advantage beyond taking care that the principal Governments are aware of our general view, and our repugnance to the meditated proceedings, so that they may call on us for any aid we can give in case of such. However, Lord Clarendon has gone beyond this and has conveyed to the German Courts the kind of intimation you wished. But Bismarck apprehends positive mischief from his taking a forward position, and the King of Bavaria is, I suppose, disabled by the overthrow of Hohenlohe. He (B.) points to the attitude of Austria as indecisive, and I understand him to say the only thing to be done is to exhort the Austrian bishops to work with their German brethren, and that as far as Prussia is concerned they may rely upon being thoroughly supported by the Government on their return home. As respects France, you know we have done the little that in us lay.
I never read a more extraordinary letter than that of Newman2 to Bishop Ullathorne, which doubtless you have seen: admirable in its strength, strange in its weakness, incomparable in speculation, tame and emasculated in action.
The Irish Land Bill is to be attacked, as it is said, on the second reading, from the extreme Irish quarter, by a motion to the effect that nothing short of carrying the Ulster custom throughout Ireland will meet the wants of the country. It does not follow that because they make this motion they will desire to poison the public mind in Ireland with respect to the Bill. But they are probably under pressure from knots of their constituents; those probably who are more or less affected by Fenian sympathies. And to Fenian pique it is absolutely vital to disturb and break up the remedial process. Hence probably the manifestations of violence at elections in Ireland. For this is a case where violence, instead of being used for an end, is itself its own end. To disturb the country is the way to assert the remedy. But the Irish members are at the best playing with edged tools: and I make no doubt the prelates will do all in their power to discountenance any proceedings that could even by possibility favour the pernicious purposes of Fenianism.
Apprehending that fear will be the governing agent in determining the issue at Rome, I can only desire, as I do from my heart, that the fears of the majority may be more violent than those of the minority. A great courage, I suppose, may win, on that side. Nothing else can.—Ever yours sincerely,
W. E. Gladstone.
Rome,March 10, 1870.
My dear Mr. Gladstone,—
You have already seen, by the production of the decree of Infallibility on Sunday, that the position of things has altered in Rome.
The Pope has at last openly identified himself with the extreme party, at the very moment when France is beginning to use sterner language, and the minority is protesting against the Regulations in terms that threaten the authority and the Oecumenicity of the Council. The change was sudden, and probably the deciding motive was the desire to be beforehand with the Germans, whose protest was expected to be more threatening than the one which the French presented on Friday. But there was also the publication of Daru’s letters in the Times of Thursday, and the fact that the Pope had shown a disposition to accept a formula proposed by the archbishops of Rouen and Algiers, and others of the Centre.
If you have seen the French protest—I sent it on Sunday to the Perseveranza, and I suppose it has been copied in the other papers—you will understand how flagrant an insult to the minority is the proposal of the new Dogma at such a moment and in such a form.
In Chapters VIII and IX the Protest affirms the principle that no Dogma can be proclaimed which does not command a moral unanimity among the bishops representing churches. The Germans have added, at the end of VIII, where those words occur, a very significant passage, which I can only communicate to you in strict confidence: Haec conditio pro Concilio Vaticano eo magis urgenda esse videtur, quum ad ferenda suffragia tot patres admissi sunt de quibus non constat evidenter, utrum jure tantum ecclesiastico, an etiam jure divino ipsis votum decisivum competat. It is obvious that, if the office of the bishops in Council is to bear testimony to the faith of their respective flocks and to the tradition of their several churches, the numerous bishops made out of Roman Monsignori, who have no jurisdiction and no flock, are a foreign as well as an arbitrary element in the Council.
The last paragraph of IX, where the bishops say that the claim to make dogmas in spite of the minority endangers the authority, liberty, and Oecumenicity of the Council, was inserted by me. These two passages supply materials for further action, in reply to the invitation to discuss the new decree. I have proposed a declaration in which the bishops would say that they cannot admit this topic for discussion until the doubts they have just expressed as to the authority and legitimacy of the Council, in the eyes of the world and of posterity, are removed by an explicit explanation of the points which are ambiguous in the new Regulation.
There is no immediate prospect that this measure will be adopted. The minority are in great confusion and uncertainty, and disposed to rely on external help.
There is no doubt, I think, that the issuing of the proposed decree puts the Governments in a position more favourable for action. The prerogative of inerrancy or infallibility in all questions of morals, that is, in all questions of conscience, gives to the Pope the ultimate control over the actions of Catholics, in politics and in society. We know also, from the Schema de Ecclesia, in favour of what principles and of what interests that supreme and arbitrary power will be exerted. The Catholics will be bound, not only by the will of future Popes, but by that of former Popes, so far as it has been solemnly declared. They will not be at liberty to reject the deposing power, or the system of the Inquisition, or any other criminal practice or idea which has been established under penalty of excommunication. They at once become irreconcilable enemies of civil and religious liberty. They will have to profess a false system of morality, and to repudiate literary and scientific sincerity. They will be as dangerous to civilised society in the school as in the State.
Divine truth cannot long be bound up peaceably with blasphemous error, and the healthy forces in the Church will end by casting off the disease. But there would be a disastrous interval and a formidable struggle. We know something of the vitality of religious error. Rome taught for four centuries and more that no Catholic could be saved who denied that heretics ought to be put to death.
The proposed decree makes the Infallibility of the Pope embrace everything to which the Infallibility of the Church extends. But in the twenty-one Canons de Ecclesia the Church is declared infallible in all matters that are necessary to the preservation of the faith. The Infallibility of the Pope would therefore be unconditional and unlimited, as he alone would have to decide what is necessary for the preservation of the faith. My letter has just been interrupted by a visit from the most learned prelate in Rome, Hefele, bishop of Rottenburg. He says distinctly that the Pope would have no limits to his Infallibility, and therefore to his authority, but such as he might choose to set himself.
There was no exaggeration in that which I wrote to you last December of the political dangers involved in this insane enterprise. Its bearings on English affairs, and on some of the measures which you have in hand, especially its consequences for the conflict against sin and unbelief, are incalculable. I am convinced that you see this as clearly as if you had passed the winter here, and I only wish that you might deem it consistent with policy and duty to speak a word of warning in Parliament, or in a letter that might be published, such as would sound the alarm far and wide.
I hope we shall yet succeed in preserving the Church from this great calamity. But the papacy itself cannot cast off the guilt and the penalty or recover the moral authority it enjoyed before.—I remain, my dear Mr. Gladstone, ever faithfully yours,
I am obliged to mark this letter private both on account of the quotation from the Protest, and of the mention of Hefele.
Rome,March 11, 1870.
My dear Mr. Gladstone,—
Since I wrote to you I have had some conversations with bishops, which strongly confirm what I said in my letter.
Antonelli is reported to have assured Beust that there is nothing to apprehend, on the part of the State, from the Schema de Ecclesia, as it is merely matter of dogmatic theology. The bishops say that this is quite untrue, that the Schema bears on politics in many ways, that the Canons, giving infallible authority to the Pope in all matters needful for the preservation of faith and in questions of morality, give him an arbitrary power of the most unlimited kind in everything with which he chooses to deal. They are entirely in contradiction with the conditions of allegiance which the Catholics formerly accepted in England. I don’t give this as a discovery of the bishops, and it would not do, of course, to quote them, but the fact that they openly acknowledge it is very remarkable.
I told them that I had written to you, and had spoken of the utility of some public utterance of your view on these particular points. They said that it would be of the greatest use; that it would make a deep impression if you spoke of the danger to the interests of religion in the legislative questions coming on; and that, if you expressed your confident belief that the English and Irish bishops would be careful not to renounce the principles by virtue of which their toleration was obtained, and not to make the carrying of liberal, tolerant, and remedial measures impossible, those words would have great weight among the Irish bishops in particular. The last suggestion was made to me by one of the prelates, in a way that showed that he deemed it of the highest practical importance. I think he is right; but speaking from a strictly Roman, local point of view, I should be afraid of the effects here of a debate in the House, which should bring out the violence of Protestant feeling and the blind folly of the Catholics.
I am persuaded that nothing would have greater effect here than some declaration of that kind, made in Parliament and not diplomatically.
Count Daru appears anxious to influence the Council usefully, but hardly knows how to set about it. The Archbishop of Rheims has just told me that the ambassador is skilfully managed by certain prelates of the Vatican party, and there is no doubt that he succeeds in blunting every blow.
I believe that Daru also could do more in the Chamber than in Rome. But it is very weak not to compel an immediate and definite settlement of the question of the ambassador. I wish he would do so by telegraph. If they cannot gain time, they will probably refuse; and then things will have been carried forward one step.
The Italian Ministry seems determined to propose further measures of confiscation against the property of the Church. That will settle the question of the attitude of the Italian bishops. It will not only neutralise Italian influence for all good purposes, but it will supply the Court with very welcome and efficient arms.
You will probably see Dr. Moriarty1 on his way home. With excellent intentions and much common sense, he has proved quite unequal to resist the subtle and deceptive influences at work in Rome. These internal divisions are intolerable to him, and he is ready to accept anything that will satisfy Rome and prevent a conflict.—I remain, yours very sincerely,
My dear Mr. Gladstone,—
A Protest on the question of Papal Infallibility was presented to-day by certain bishops of the United Kingdom.
They exhort the Legates to pause before they put that doctrine to the vote. They state that the English and Irish Catholics obtained their Emancipation, and the full privileges of citizenship by solemn and repeated declarations that their religion did not teach the dogma now proposed; that these declarations, made by the bishops and permitted by Rome, are in fact the condition under which Catholics are allowed to sit in Parliament and to hold offices of trust and responsibility under the Crown; and that they cannot be overlooked or forgotten by us without dishonour.
I have reason to believe that one at least of the prelates who have signed this most significant paper would not be among the theological opponents of the Definition, but that he regards this consideration of morality and public integrity as an insuperable barrier for men enjoying the benefit of the Act of Emancipation.—I remain, yours very sincerely,
My dear Mr. Gladstone,—
It appears to be ascertained that the ambassadors will be refused. Meanwhile M. de Banneville has gone to plead his own cause at Paris; and Bismarck has telegraphed that he has never opposed the joint action of the Powers, as nothing of the kind has been proposed, so that Arnim has seen the Bishop of Orleans and has despatched a courier urging his Government to take a more active part.
The French Government, having accomplished nothing hitherto beyond giving the minority some hope of future aid, will have to make up its mind decidedly on the line to take, and it will be a good opportunity to bring neighbourly influence to bear.
The Powers have a distinct claim upon France, as France is responsible for all the evil that the Council may do. Since the Schema de Ecclesia and the Decree de Infallibilitate Pontificis were published, there can be no uncertainty as to the designs of Rome. We know that it seeks to be made absolute over the consciences of men, and we know for what civil purposes it will employ its power.
The danger which thus threatens religion and society is made possible by the French occupation, and would be impossible without it. The French Ministry do not profess to be indifferent to the consequences, or to deny the danger for which they are responsible. It threatens other countries quite as seriously as France, and they have good ground for remonstrance and a perfect right to insist in the strongest way that such troubles should not be caused by a Power professing to be liberal and friendly.
The religious pretext for the occupation cannot be urged at a time when it is indirectly producing effects injurious to religion, and is continued only on account of the interest which France has in dividing Italy. The liberal Ministry of Ollivier and Daru are preparing grave internal difficulties for England and Germany in order to keep up difficulties of another kind for the Italians.
If they do not send an ambassador, they have no other security to offer to Europe, except the recall of the troops. To give up the Concordat and all the system of the French Church would be, at least for the time, an injury rather than a benefit to religion, and a blow struck not so much at the Pope as at the Episcopate.
It is easy to show that the financial embarrassment of Italy is increased by the Roman question. It excludes the conservative element from political life, and makes it a merit with great part of the population to resist the law. The Government is driven to the resource of confiscating Church property by the Roman difficulty itself. The religious houses are suppressed, the schools of divinity reduced, the priesthood almost starved, because France is determined to keep the Pope on his despotic throne. It is a policy which degrades the Italian Government in the eyes of the nation, nurses the revolutionary passion, and hinders the independence of the country, and which can no longer be defended on the score of religious liberty. The French protectorate has become as injurious to Catholicism as to the Italian State, and it is about to prove as pernicious to other countries as it is to Italy.
I find one part of the Episcopate busily trying to find sophisms that will justify persecution, despotism, regicide, and the other things to which the Church is committed if the Popes are infallible; and I find others anxiously awaiting the active intervention of the European Powers. Both seem to me to suggest the same moral.
All the Governments that dislike to act now, and look forward to some mode of self-protection after the Dogma is adopted, must prefer that the necessity should be averted, that the Definition should be prevented before it involves them in struggles and disputes at home.
If it is true that Count Daru is nearly alone in the Ministry in the view he takes of the Council, it will be impossible for him to stand the refusal of his ambassador. His resignation would greatly weaken the Ministry. Probably he will either insist, or seek some alternative.—I remain, yours very sincerely,
My dear Mr. Gladstone,—
There is one way in which you might notably aid our cause at this moment.
The Archbishop of Paris tells me that the French Government has copies of the stenographic reports of the debate on Infallibility. He says that M. Guizot has read them. This is confirmed from other quarters. Can you not obtain communication of these Reports? At least, can you not get hold of the speeches of English subjects, of Cullen,1 Manning, MacHale,2 Macevilly,3 Clifford,4 Connolly,5 which must be of the greatest interest to you as head of the Government?
And if you see them, would it be possible to allow some use of them to be made for the purpose of enlightening the Catholic public? Several of the bishops send me their speeches, and it would be of the utmost importance to make them known. But those who give them are all on one side. To publish them would be to expose the speakers, and this danger can only be avoided by giving at the same time some speeches of the other side, which are, indeed, often quite as instructive and as significant as the best speeches of the opposition. Nothing would throw more light on the present position of things than Manning’s speech, for instance. It would be a very powerful assistance to our side of the question if you could help me in this matter. I would make known about a dozen speeches, and the worldly would be rather surprised at what would be in them.
The collapse of the French influence has been a serious matter, and things are looking ill. I shall spring one more mine this week and then leave Rome. If you can give me any hope, pray, send it to me, Hotel d’Italie, Florence, where I shall be till the 13th, and then chez le Comte d’Arco, Tegernsee, Bavière.—I remain, yours most sincerely,
My dear Mr. Gladstone,—
Can I entertain any hope that you will obtain the Reports of the debates in Rome? I am obliged to trouble you with the question because I am writing to some of the bishops on the subject, and what I write depends in some degree on the prospect in France. Two Englishmen, Errington1 and Connolly, made nearly the most effective speeches in the last stage of the discussion.—I remain, yours very sincerely,
[1 ]Janus. (Der Papst und das Konzil.) Janus was the pseudonym of Döllinger, assisted by Friedrich and Huber. The book was published in 1869. It was an anti-papal review of the development of the papacy, designed to hinder the proclamation of Infallibility. It had, and has, a great vogue.
[2 ]Maret’s book. Henri Louis Charles Maret, Archbishop of Lepanto. The book is Du Concile général et de la paix religieuse, 1869.
[1 ]The answer of the Munich Divines. Prince Hohenlohe presented a thesis as to the probable political effects of the doctrine of Infallibility, and secured answers from various bodies. On this topic cf. Friedrich, Geschichte des Vatikanischen Konzils, i. 791 et seq.
[2 ] The letter of Prince Hohenlohe, Prime Minister of Bavaria and brother of the cardinal, is described in Acton’s chapter on the Vatican Council (The History of Freedom and other Essays, p. 503). He recalled the Bavarian minister at Rome, because he did not agree with his views.
[3 ]Hohenlohe; Prince Chlodwig Karl Viktor von Hohenlohe-Schillingsfürst, brother of Cardinal Adolf von Hohenlohe-Schillingsfürst, issued in 1869 a circular despatch warning of the dangers attending the proposed Council. It is printed in Friedberg’s Aktenstücke, p. 296 et seq. Prince Hohenlohe’s Memoirs were published both in German and English in 1906. After his career as Minister in Bavaria, he succeeded Count Arnim as ambassador in Paris. He alludes to this matter in his Denkwürdigkeiten, i. 366 et seq.
[1 ]Cf. Friedrich, op. cit., iii. 330 et seq.
[1 ] The Bull, In Coena Domini. This Bull, which took its final form in 1627, was proclaimed every year on Maundy Thursday. It contained a list of excommunications, in reserved cases, i.e. cases which none but the Pope could resolve. These included appealing from the Pope to a general council, from the ecclesiastical to the lay courts, and in general, invasion of clerical “immunities.” Many countries, e.g. France and Portugal, refused to allow it to be published in their territories.
[2 ]Ganganelli, Giovanni Vicenzo Antonio (1705-74), Clement XIV. Suppressed the Society of Jesus in 1773 by the Bull Dominus ac Redemptor Noster. He did not abrogate the Bull In Coena Domini, but merely dropped the practice of republishing it every year on Holy Thursday. Pius IX abrogated it by the Bull Apostolicae Sedis.
[1 ]The Prince de la Tour-d’Auvergne, Henri Godefroi Alphonse (1823-71), was Foreign Minister under Louis Napoleon under Chasseloup-Laubat. He refused to serve under Ollivier, alleging ill-health.
Cf. Ollivier, L’Empire Libéral, le dernier Ministère du Pouvoir personnel, vol. xii. pp. 37 et 207.
[2 ]Ollivier, Emile (1825-1913). Louis Napoleon’s Prime Minister; author of L’Empire Libéral.
[3 ]Nigra, Constantin, Comte (1828-1907), Italian ambassador at Paris to Louis Napoleon. He was afterwards ambassador at Paris, London, and Vienna.
[1 ]Darboy, Georges (1813-71), Archbishop of Paris, was shot by the Communards; was a saintly and determined opponent of the Papal Infallibility.
[2 ]Beust, Friedrich Ferdinand von (1809-86), was Foreign Minister of Saxony, then of Austria, and Chancellor of the Austrian Empire in 1867.
[3 ]Arnim, Henri Charles Conrad Edward, Count; was at the time Prussian Ambassador at Rome. Afterwards he was sent to Paris, whence he was recalled and persecuted by Bismarck.
[1 ]Lavradio, Francesco Almeida, Count de Lavradio was sent as ambassador to the Court of Rome at the time of the Council, but was expressly declared to be merely an ordinary ambassador with no reference to the Council.
[2 ]Menabrea, Louis Frédéric, Marquis de Valdora, Comte (1809-96). After much success as a general he became Prime Minister of Victor Emmanuel in 1866-69. He declared that he would leave the Italian bishops free to attend the Council. He removed the exemption from military service of students at the seminaries.
[1 ]Rauscher, Joseph Oltmar von, Cardinal Archbishop of Vienna (1797-1878). Rauscher, though opposed to Infallibility, did not sign the protesting memorial of the fifty-five bishops to the Pope. In due course he promulgated the Vatican Decrees.
[1 ]Strossmayer, Joseph George (1815-1905), Bishop of Bosnia and Sirmium with his residence at Diakovar, the most important of the anti-infallibilist bishops. He submitted to the Decrees. He became a great friend of Mr. Gladstone, through the influence of Döllinger and Acton.
[2 ]Lavalette, Charles Jean Marie Félix, Marquis de (1806-1881), was French ambassador at Rome in 1861, and afterwards Minister of the Interior; then, in 1869, he went to the London Embassy.
[1 ]The New Ministry in France. This refers to the Ministry of Emile Ollivier, which was formed at the beginning of 1870, and was designed to give the Empire a new lease of life, on a liberal and parliamentary basis.
[1 ]Daru, Napoléon, Comte de (1807-90), was Foreign Minister under Émile Ollivier. He resigned in April of the same year.
[1 ] There are two endorsements in Mr. Gladstone’s handwriting: “How could we prompt others without joining ourselves?”—W. E. G., Feb. 23. “When is there an F. O. messenger or opportunity to Rome?”—Feb. 24.
[2 ] This refers to the famous letter of Newman calling the Ultramontanes an “insolent and aggressive faction.” It was a private letter, but somehow got into the Standard. On this topic, see Wilfrid Ward’s Life of Newman, ii. 287 et seq.
[1 ]Moriarty, David (1812-77), Bishop of Kerry.
[1 ]Cullen, Paul (1803-78), Cardinal Archbishop of Dublin; leader of the English and Irish Infallibilists. His reply to the Bishop of Rottenburg was one of the ablest speeches on that side in the Council.
[2 ]MacHale, John (1791-1881), Archbishop of Tuam. Dr. MacHale was an Inopportunist, but submitted the moment the dogma of Infallibility was proclaimed.
[3 ]Macevilly, John, Bishop of Galway, afterwards Archbishop of Tuam.
[4 ]Clifford, William, Bishop of Clifton, was one of the chief opponents of Infallibility among the English.
[5 ]Connolly, Thomas, Archbishop of Halifax, Nova Scotia.
Cf. his speech De Fide in Friedrich, iii. 323.
[1 ]Errington, George (1804-86), coadjutor to Wiseman, Archbishop of Trebizond in partibus. Compare the accounts of him in Wilfrid Ward’s Life of Wiseman and in Purcell’s Life of Manning.