This document is, therefore, evidence against those who contend for the Gallican character of the Church in Canada; but even if it were the contrary, it has been referred to here for this reason: it is the only document in force referred to in the edicts, ordinances, arrêts, etc., in France or in Canada, in ecclesiastical or "Gallican state papers, in which the phrase, "Libertés de l'Eglise Gallicane," appears. The state paper drawn up by Dupuy in 1728, and already referred to, relies on the articles of 1682, but was annulled. In no one of the commissions to governors or intendants is there any reference to the Gallican Church. In the ordinances or patents respecting the bishops, the seminary, the Jesuits, or other religious bodies, there is not a word pointing to any Gallican Church or any special customs, liberties, or privileges.'

The state papers drawn up in reference to the cession are further evidence of the position for which we are contending. The VIth article of the capitulation of Quebec provided that "la religion catholique, apostolique et romaine sera conservé;" the XXVIIth article of the Capitulation at Montreal makes provision that “la religion catholique, apostolique et romaine subistera en son entier," and then the Treaty of Paris in its IVth clause secures "la religion. catholique... selon les rites de l'Eglise de Rome." Attorney-general Marriot, who went very minutely into the whole question, gave it as his strong opinion that the Church in Canada was the Church of Rome without any restrictions of the Gallican Church. He wrote at the time, and at the express request of the government of England. He was employed to draft a constitution for the "new" subjects of His Majesty George III., and he was regarded as one of the most learned doctors of the law in the kingdom.

The Church, then, in Canada began under the protection of the Archbishop of Rouen, and for nearly fifty years was under his charge. A vicar apostolic was then put over the country; the archbishop lost all control of the ecclesiastical affairs, and Quebec became immediately dependent on the Holy See. Prior to this time Cardinal Richelieu, an adherent of the Roman as opposed to the Gallican tenets, took charge of the colony.2

quelque chose à ma connaissance, je le ferai savoir à Votre Majesté; ainsi, Dieu me soit en aide, et ses Saints Evangiles par moi touchés."

1 In a series of questions put for the decision of the king in 1692, on some disciplinary matters as to precedence in the Church, an answer is given to one to the effect that the case be governed "par les usages de l'Eglise de France." It is needless to say that it would be unfair to draw a general deduction from phrases like "l'Eglise de France," or "l'Eglise Gallicane," when used in a sense of certain customs obtaining in France and necessarily introduced here.

2 Ranke says: "Richelieu found it advisable, on the whole, to attach himself as closely as possible to the Papacy; in the disputes between the Roman and Gallican doctrines, he now adhered to the Roman and abandoned the Gallican tenets."

In the third quarter of the century the diocese was erected and placed under Roman as opposed to Gallican control. From 1682, the date of the Gallican articles, until 1693, when they were annulled, no edict is to be found transplanting them into Canada, and no French or Canadian edict ever referred to them as being in force in this country. The Pope, it is said, claimed that it did not apply to a country like Canada. The Superior Council at Quebec has no reference to it. In 1728 an attorney-general attempted to make it appear that it was French law, and founded an edict upon it, but the edict was annulled, and he was dismissed from his position. Finally, in 1741, the last bishop who owed allegiance to France was installed with special reference to the fact that the diocese of Quebec was created by the bulls and apostolic provisions of Clement X. in 1674. In 1763 Canada passed out of French control, and in the capitulation at Montreal, some years before, the French representatives asked that the nomination of French bishops, etc., be reserved to the French king, and the absurd request was very naturally refused.

The rights of the régale never could have any application to Canada except as to the presentation, which has been a law at all times in France-so long as the Church has existed there. How was this in Canada? Every bishop after Laval had his coadjutor, who was appointed in partibus infidelium, just as Laval himself originally had been. The consent of the king was superadded. There was never a vacancy in point of fact, and there were no revenues for the king to seize upon. These are the three features of the régale, and it cannot be intelligently argued that the right applied to Canada. It did not arise in France until after 1670.

Then the appel comme d'abus does not apply to Canada. Sir Robert Phillimore, in giving judgment in the Guibord case, on the contention that the Court of Queen's Bench, created in 1794, possessed the power of enforcing the privileges of the Gallican Church by proceeding in the nature of an appel comme d'abus, says: "Considering the altered circumstances of the Roman Catholic Church in Canada, the non-existence of any recognized ecclesiastical courts in that province, such as those in France, which it was the office of an appel comme d'abus to control and keep within their jurisdiction, and the absence of any mention in the recent code of procedure for Lower Canada of such a proceeding, their lordships would feel considerable difficulty in affirming the latter of these

1 The colony was so poor, and the church revenues so insufficient, that the king had to defray the expenses connected with procuring the bulls from Rome in Bishop Laval's time. When Canada fell into the hands of the English, the government granted an annuity to the bishop to maintain him in suitable dignity. A vacant benefice in Canada would not afford any régale. The bishops had the patronage by a royal arrêt, dated 27th March, 1699.

propositions." The ordinance of 1695, set out above, would seem to be decisive of this question.

In ordinary language, this means that there was no such appeal; that there cannot be an appeal where there is no court to be appealed from. His lordship then proceeded to show that a number of cases decided in Lower Canada, supposed to be appeals of this nature, were not so in reality. And one hundred years before this judgment of the Privy Council, Chief Justice Hey reported to the home government that so far as appeals from the ecclesiastical to the civil tribunals were concerned, "no such thing as ecclesiastical courts existed in the province." The governor-general, Carlton, acquiesced in this view. However it may be as to the existence of appealable courts, the position was taken that the tribunal capable of entertaining such appeals was not the Superior Council at Quebec, and this position was upheld on a reference to the French court. The ordinance of 1695, already cited, expressly enjoins that, except in the case of appeal to the courts of parliament, the civil authorities were not to interfere with the judges of the Church in matters of a spiritual nature. That the courts of the parliament of Paris might have been able to entertain an appeal, in virtue of this ordonnance, from the judges of the Church, may be fairly argued; but by every canon or legal construction of a written law, there could be no appeal to any other tribunal, and so no appeal to the Superior Council at Quebec.

In former articles of this REVIEW, the writer has discussed the "Treaty of Paris," and the " Quebec Act," making reference to such incidental matters as seemed to throw light upon these important documents. The order in which these studies have been presented to the reader may be open to some objection; but it is to be hoped that a little assistance has been given to whosoever takes up the task of writing the history of the Church in Canada. Such a work remains yet to be done; some general histories of Canada, of course, there are; but in these, even when written by Catholics, and where the Church necessarily forms an important part, much must be taken with caution, and not a little rejected altogether. It is to be regretted that, with one or two notable exceptions, non-Catholic writers have done themselves no credit by the suppression of what is unquestionably the truth, and by the suggestion of what is undeniably falsehood. It is no part of the present writer's task to correct, or to try to correct, every erroneous impression or unfair statement of those who have preceded him in the consideration of the questions here suggested; it was deemed sufficient to put forward the one view of the case and allow it to rest on such evidence as properly decides the questions in dispute. That evidence speaks for itself; and if the reader thinks it points to other conclusions, he is welcome to his own opinion.

A

CATHOLICITY IN ITALY.1

SINGLE fact, taken up by chance from among those which are of frequent and almost daily occurrence in Italy, and even in Rome, may serve to introduce to American readers the very important topic with which this paper deals. YesterdaySeptuagesima Sunday—at half-past one o'clock of the afternoon, a large and select audience assembled in the great hall of the Roman College, the once glorious school of the Society of Jesus, to hear a distinguished member of the Italian Parliament deliver a lecture on what must have seemed to his admirers a most interesting subject. Around the lecturer's chair was a circle of illustrious Italianissime gentlemen and ladies. There were Mancini, the ex-Minister of Foreign Affairs, who won himself such unenviable notoriety at the time of the obsequies of Pius IX., in the summer of 1881, and two years ago in the confiscation of the Propaganda property; Zanardelli, ex-Minister of Justice, Cairoli, Spaventa, Pianciani, Sbarbaro, Miceli, and others whose names the Gazzetta d'Italia omits to mention. The rest of the audience was made up of the anti-clerical clubs of Rome, of the youth who are mis-taught in the institutions which formerly composed the Papal University of the Sapienza and the Roman College itself, in papal times the Gregorian University.

The lecturer was the honorable Domenico Berti, and the subject was-The Life and Work of Giordano Bruno-the great apostle of atheism in Italy. The subject-matter and its treatment were quite in harmony with the ideas and sentiments of the audience, for the illustrious statesmen present, and the moltissime signore, the crowd of ladies, applauded frequently and vehemently.

So, in the great hall of the world-wide renowned Catholic school in which Leo XIII. was educated, he had the grief to learn that on

[It may be noticed that here we present a second article, in this number of the REVIEW, on the relation of the State to the Church in Italy. The fact that these two contributions came to us almost simultaneously is a striking illustration of the renewed interest that is being taken in this question. Both papers were written in entire independence of each other, one by an American priest resident in the Eternal City; the other, by an American bishop, making close observation during his visit ad limina apostolorum, and, some considerable time after his return home, putting his recollections and impressions in the shape in which they appear in our opening article. Necessarily, both, to a great extent, cover the same ground; but each adds greatly to the interest the other awakens in the reader, who cannot fail to remark the different ways by which they arrive at practically the same conclusion. The Roman question will remain an open one until it is settled in favor of the Pope, of the Church, and of justice.-ED. REVIEW.]

Septuagesima Sunday, the beginning of the solemn penitential season, a high official held up to the admiration of the men and women of Italy, of the youth of Rome in particular, a man whose name would never have survived among posterity but for the evil preeminence gained him by his pestilential doctrines, his life dedicated to the propagation of blasphemy, and his evil end.

The Syndaco, or Mayor of Rome, Duke Leopold Torlonia, a nephew of the great Prince Alexander Torlonia, buried two weeks ago, not being able to preside at this ungodly assemblage on the Lord's day, sent one of his associates in office.

And so the Sabbath is now consecrated in Rome-in the name of Italy, of patriotism, of progress, of civilization-to the unhallowed work of undoing all that so many ages of Christian culture and piety had effected; of discrediting within sight of the hill where St. Peter was crucified, and of the great temple beneath whose dome he and his brother Apostle repose in death, the very doctrines which they had sealed with their blood, the very notion itself of a God Creator and Revealer!

But this is only a part of a system. Wherever in Italy there has existed in the past a personage noted for his hatred of the Papacy, or his prominence as a teacher of error, or a corrupter of souls by false doctrines or immoral writings, there it is now the rule, sanctioned by the men in power, to hold a solemn festival in honor of the man. So happened it with Arnold of Brescia, so with Socinus in Siena; so made they capital in 1866 of the centenary of Dante's birth to hold a carnival of anti-Papal exultation at Ravenna.

And why do we quote these facts? Simply to point to the clever and successful strategy followed in Italy and in Rome by the enemies of the Christian name to blot out from the souls and the lives of the people of Italy the last remnants of religious belief and practice, and to do their work so effectually that the reconversion of the Italian people to the belief in Christ and the practice of His religion will be a task incomparably more difficult than that which the disciples of Peter and Paul had to face on the morning following that memorable 29th of June, in the year of Christ 66, when Nero fancied he had killed Christianity with the sword which beheaded Paul, and made it eternally odious by the cross on which Peter died, head downwards, on the Janicule.

This is a grave assertion. But do you want seriously to become acquainted with the agencies which are now at work in Rome and throughout Italy to pervert the minds and hearts of her people? Do you wish to know what a plentiful harvest the enemy of God and man has reaped from the seed sown so plentifully and cultivated with such abundant force of laborers and such inexhaustible resources during the last thirty years or more? Then we shall