VII. into the States of Naples, without the permission of the Sovereign, in 1729, and again in 1761; and, again, I think, in 1768'. And though the King of Naples might have prohibited the lessons themselves, yet" having considered that Clergymen would have continued to read them in spite of this prohibition, and that the interdiction of part of the divine service would have been a matter of scandal to over-superstitious people, which affording the Court of Rome an opportunity to avail itself of their discontent, would have given rise to fresh inconveniences," &c.,-the Government simply imprisoned the printers of the Breviary, and seized the copies in their hands, on the mere technical ground, that it was a reprint of a foreign work without license 2!

I have said, p. 22, that the books which the Pope does not censure, he must be held (at least if they are published in Roman Catholic countries, and, above all, in Rome) to approve. This principle is, in reference to the present subject, well illustrated by the minister of the King of Naples. "If in any of your Majesty's kingdoms a history were published containing a list of the Popes who had been deposed, and confined by the Emperors, would not such a book immediately experience the thunderbolts of Rome? And if such a book were printed within the walls of Rome, would the Court of Rome suffer it? would its Ministers be silent? would they despise it? Experience shews that these too prudent persons extinguish all knowledge and every information of those facts, and divert the minds of the people with circumstances of an opposite nature, to prepossess them in their favour."

I will only add, that the Saint's-day of Gregory VII.,

1 Appendix to Report, (1816), p. 230-246.

2 Appendix to Report, (1816), p. 235. See also Potter, L'Esprit de l'Eglise, III. 51-129.

3 Appendix to Report, (1816), p. 234.

as well as the Saint's-day of Pius V., the first and the last of the Popes who, by a formal edict, exerted the deposing power, the one against the Emperor Henry IV., the other against our Queen Elizabeth, are both retained as holy in the Calendar of the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Dublin'.

II. By the celebrated Bull in Cœnâ Domini, formerly published at Rome every year, on Holy Thursday, every thing on earth is made subject to the Popes. The history of the intrigues of successive Pontiffs to procure the circulation, and enforce the sentences, of this Bull, is very curious: but it is not necessary to do more here than to refer generally to the subject. Some notices of that history are given in the Appendix to the Report of 1816. I will only add, that, when the Parliament of Paris, roused by the interference of the Pope in the Duchy of Parma, in 1768, prohibited the circulation of the Brief in which the Pope, under the authority of the Bull in Coenâ Domini, annulled certain edicts of the Duchy, the King Louis XV. was infatuated enough to suspend the execution of this arrêt of the Parliament!

The Primate of Hungary, the Cardinal Bathiani, told the Emperor Joseph II. in 17823, that in the schools of Hungary there never was a doubt as to the obligation of that Bull: and he goes on to prove" hanc bullam in patriâ nostrâ receptam esse atque plenam obligandi vim habuisse." Nor can it be annulled by any temporal power; for, he adds, "Jam verò omni cum homagiali

p.

1 Evidence before the House of Commons, 1825, p. 486, compared with 651.

2 In respect to Spain, p. 329-340. In respect to France, p. 269-277. In respect to Naples, p. 208-246.

3 Responsio Cardinalis Bathiani, Primatus Hungariæ ad Imperatorem Josephum II. relativè ad Decreta Ecclesiastico-Politica de Religiosis ordinibus. Romæ, 1782.

subjectione et veneratione Majestati Vestræ Sanctissimæ insinuo, Leges Ecclesiasticas à potestate politicâ abrogari non posse." However, as Clement XIV. (Ganganelli) had intermitted the annual publication of this Bull; and as Pius V. had declared that, when published, it was to be binding only from year to year, the Cardinal thinks, that, in the mind of the Church of Rome, it is no longer obligatory.

It is remarkable, however, that a few years afterwards, in 1793, the Cardinal Erskine gave under his own handwriting at Rome in August 1793, to Sir John Cox Hippesley, a note containing this important passage: "This Bull, although the formality of its publication is now omitted, is nevertheless implicitly in vigour in all its extension, and is likewise observed in all cases, where there is no impediment to the exertion of the Pope's authority: therefore it must legally be looked upon as a public declaration to preserve his rights '."

In every thing which I have said or written, I have endeavoured to omit all reference to the theological part of this question. I do not undervalue the arguments of those, who, on religious grounds, resist the concession of the Roman Catholic claims: but, personally, I have been content to examine the question as one of politics only; and, therefore, I have never for a moment alluded to any thing which, as a Protestant, I must regard as unscriptural in the doctrines of the Church of Rome. I have looked to nothing but to its direct influence on temporal things. Again, I have not quoted history, at least, hardly any thing which is not contemporary, except, indeed, in the argument on the Treaty of Limerick: though I am

1 Report (1816), p. 341.

well satisfied, that, on both these grounds, might be found much matter of great importance to the cause which I attempt to maintain. I have confined myself to the circle of the civil tendencies of the Church of Rome at the present day; and, within these bounds, I find enough to justify my vote to my conscience.

PRINTED BY R. GILBERT,

ST. JOHN'S-SQUARE.

THE END.