"Not so! the king What were they to

in the right, and the archbishop in the wrong. Neither the archbishop nor any living soul in Prussia wrote a single syllable against this; and, according to the rule, qui tacet consentit, the three ministers had obtained an undisputed victory. But, as the French say, l'appétit vient en mangeant; not satisfied with a first, they were desirous of a second and greater triumph. The whole ministry then transformed themselves into another Council of Trent, and, instead of four columns, published two thick folio volumes, in which it was proved again that the king was right, and that the archbishop was wrong. Who could answer this? Certainly, no one in Prussia; but the pope stood up and said: is wrong, and the archbishop is right." do with him? They could not send him to Minden, and the Prussian censorship is not so powerful at Rome as at Berlin. In this time of need they selected a man very learned in Protestant theology, and speaking Latin as fluently as the cardinals Mezzofanti and Mai, whom the king ordered to refute both the pope and his cardinals, and, if possible, to persuade them to turn Protestants. This man was Dr. Bunsen. It is difficult to say what he might not have obtained through his solid learning in matters of Protestant divinity from the pope and his cardinals, if the latter had consented to listen to him. But whenever Dr. Bunsen knocked at a door, there. was nobody at home to him. Such behaviour was, to say nothing more, uncivil on the part of the pope and his cardinals; and the king of Prussia, who is not a man to pocket an insult, immediately dismissed—the pope or his cardinals? No!-Dr. Bunsen, for not having spoken to them as he ought to have done.

In this strain we might continue for a long while, without altering in the least the truth of the facts, but we hope we have already succeeded in showing our readers one side at least of the question; the blunders and the utter neglect of all forms of justice which characterized the proceedings of the Prussian cabinet. The archbishop was first condemned and thrown into prison; and then they tried him ;-before a tribunal? By no means !-the king's ministers sent several quires of foolscap, filled with Hegelian casuistry, into the world, and this was the trial which followed the judgement.

The negociation with Rome very appropriately crowned the whole. They have excellent schools and universities in Prussia; and have they still to learn the character of the Romish church? Have they yet to learn that it is a fundamental doctrine of that church, that the pope can never be wrong, and that what he says must be right? Dr. Bunsen, no doubt, is a man of merit and estimable erudition; but if they had sent a second Cicero to Rome, he would not have convinced the pope, because the pope decides, dictates, and never argues in matters of religion. They had an example in the archbishop, an aged man of upwards of seventy, whom they bullied and threw into prison to no purpose; and how could they hope for a moment to succeed with the pope, whom they could neither bully nor throw into prison? It was, on the contrary, the pope, who not only bullied, but actually insulted the Prussian cabinet.

The crown prince of Prussia had lent a sum of money to the duke of Cafarelli, on the security of his palace at Rome. As soon as the pope heard of it, the duke of Cafarelli was punished with confinement in his own house, for having borrowed money from a Prussian prince; and, lest the Prussian cabinet should be mistaken as to the meaning of this measure, a note was sent to their ambassador at Rome, in which he was dryly told to take back his prince's money from the Papal treasury, which would advance it. And, lastly, by an edict, dated the 5th of May, the duke was declared unfit to administrate his private fortune, which was all taken from him and placed in the hands of a prelate, who was appointed his guardian.

A native of Rome, of the name of Rubiconti, who had been an officer in the army of Napoleon, fixed himself, on the retreat from Russia, at Königsberg in Prussia, where he married a Protestant, by whom he had two girls, who were brought up in the religion of the mother. The officer, who had a father living at Rome and possessed of some fortune, went with his family there. When arrived, his father said to him, "Your wife and girls must become Catholics." The wife would not consent, and the son was disinherited. During the presence of Dr. Bunsen at Rome, the two children were taken by force from their mother, and, by the pope's order, conveyed to St. Michaels, where they are to be brought

up in the Catholic religion. This was certainly an act of shocking injustice perpetrated against a Prussian subject, but it was also an insult wantonly put upon the Prussian cabinet, and committed under the eyes of their ambassador. What can they do? Prussia is a powerful country, with a numerous well-disciplined army, and the pope is scarcely strong enough to stand upon his legs, and defend himself from his own subjects. Yet the laughter will certainly not be on the side. of Prussia, for her position very much resembles that of Gulliver when he fenced with the flies and struggled in the milk-pot.

The Government began boldly: perhaps with rather too much decision and heroism. The archbishop was arrested in the month of November last year, but what have they done since? All they could to hush up the matter. Prussia has covered herself with ridicule if we look to the mere surface of the matter; but what is still worse and of far greater importance, the king has involved himself in dangerous quarrels with five millions of his subjects. He has five millions of Catholic subjects, who see in the imprisonment of the archbishop an attack upon their faith. In Münster and several other places, the intervention of the armed force became necessary; blood has been shed, and the king is at daggers drawn with his Catholic subjects in the east as well as in the west.

The dispute between the king and the archbishop is a question of law and right. The king is not master at home with respect to the Catholic church, whose rights are contained in the law of the Germanic Confederation, and in a concordat which the Prussian cabinet voluntarily concluded with the pope in 1821.

On the 25th of February 1803, not long before the dissolution of the German empire, the Imperial Diet resolved, with respect to the bishoprics, chapters and other clerical corporations possessing votes at the Diet, and secularized at that time, that their properties should be employed as an endowment for the Catholic church and Catholic schools. This resolution was received into the legislation of the new Germanic Confederation (8th of June 1815, and 15th of May 1820), and the archbishoprics and bishoprics created afterwards in Baden, Wurtemberg, Bavaria, &c. received such an

endowment, which rendered them completely independent of the Government with respect to their finances. When the archbishopric of Cologne was created, the landed properties which were to serve for its endowment had been mortgaged by the political Government (in 1813), but the king of Prussia bound himself to redeem them before the year 1833, and to pay the archbishop, in the interval, a yearly sum equivalent to the revenues of this property. The year 1833 came, but the king showed no intention of fulfilling his engagement. This led to negociations between the Roman see and the Prussian cabinet, which were broken off a few weeks before the imprisonment of the archbishop. The negociations were carried on by Monsignor Capaccini; and this affair, which was scarcely mentioned in our papers, is exactly the most important point in the history of the affair of Cologne. The Roman see insisted upon the restoration of the landed property, the possession of which was to render the archbishop completely independent of the government; and it is not at all impossible that the Prussian cabinet, which was anxious to continue the provisional state of things which converted the archbishop, in a certain way, into a paid functionary of Government, conceived the idea of venturing a bold stroke, calculated for intimidation, and, with this view, hazarded the outrage at Cologne.* If this had succeeded, the cabinet

* The subject was first hinted at in the German papers, as may be seen by the following passage, which we take from a letter, dated Berlin, the 15th of December, in the general Gazette of Leipzig, one of the best-informed papers of Germany on the subject:

"It is said that Monsignor Capaccini came hither to fulfil a mission, whose object was to obtain a new landed security for the salaries of the Catholic clergy in the kingdom of Prussia. By our concordat with the Roman see, these salaries are claimed upon estates in the grand dukedom of Posen; and, in this respect, the position of the Catholic clergy is undoubtedly more advantageous than that of other public functionaries. But this was not sufficient for the court of Rome, and Monsignor Capaccini had been charged to insist upon the security being transferred upon estates situated in the Rhenish provinces. It is evident that it is the clergy of the Rhenish provinces who provoked the negociations, for they are directly interested in them. The coincidence between the recall of Monsignor Capaccini and the arrest of the archbishop of Cologne naturally gives rise to many rumours and conjectures, which we abandon to the appreciation of our readers."

The style of this curious document is that which the censorship forces men to adopt who are anxious to be permitted to say what they intend. Very little practice is required to retranslate such hints into a very clear and lucid statement; and, by combining this somewhat obscure document with the more known facts, we shall obtain the following somewhat clearer view of the negociations between Monsignor Capaccini and the Prussian court.

of Prussia might have earned a great reputation in the stock-jobbing world for so bold a manœuvre; but as it is, it

The sums which the government yearly paid to the clergy were no salaries, but an indemnity to be paid until the restitution of the property to the lawful owner. Monsignor Capaccini claimed the restitution of the property-and the government answered: The clergy regularly receive their salaries like the other "public functionaries." If you desire, however, to have the payment secured upon land, we offer you a mortgage on such and such estates in the grand dukedom of Posen, representing exactly the value of the capital for which we pay a yearly rent.

Imagine now, for instance, our own Government taking away from the duke of

Bedford, or some other nobleman, his lands; and when the owner asks for a restitution, telling him coolly: "The essential point for you can only be to touch the revenues which your lands yield; we shall pay them to you, and, as a security for our so doing, you shall have a mortgage upon your own property." But the cabinet of Prussia offered to give a mortgage upon a property of their own, and not upon that of the church! This was still worse. The lands offered were crown lands, and as such inalienable; the security offered was therefore a mere fiction. A still greater perfidy lurked under the tender. Prussia consists of two completely different countries. The king of Prussia entered the Germanic Confederation with only 8,640,100 subjects, while the whole number of his subjects was at the time 11,633,177. With respect to the first, the king is subject to the jurisdiction of the Germanic Confederation; with respect to the smaller fraction remaining, the king's power is absolute and unlimited. The grand dukedom of Posen makes part of those possessions which come under the last description. Monsignor Capaccini, by virtue of the law of the Germanic Confederation, claimed the property of estates situated in the country within the jurisdiction and protection of the Diet; and the king offered instead, a mortgage upon a property of his own, not within the jurisdiction of the Diet, as a security for the regular payment of the revenues of the property claimed. Suppose he does not fulfil his engagements: the seizure of the security could not be effectuated by legal proceedings, but only by negociations with, as it were, a foreign prince, or, in case of no result by this means, through a war against him; the seizure of the mortgage could only be, either a voluntary cession, or a regular conquest. Monsignor Capaccini it is evident raised claims to which he was entitled, and the Government answered him by pettifogging shuffling, which they had not even the modesty to hide under the hypocritical appearance of legality. What wonder, therefore, if Mons. Capaccini broke off the negociations!

We need scarcely add, that we only lay before our readers the facts of a legal case; but lest it should be thought that some of these facts would also be applicable to the appropriation of our church property, we will add a few words more. Our church has only the usufruct of what is called church property; the real proprietor is the nation, and the nation may change its destination. But in the case of Prussia, the real proprietor is the Germanic Empire as represented by the Diet; and the Diet, for the very same reason that it gave the full enjoyment of the estates in question to the Catholic church, might also have given it to any other. If we establish, therefore, a comparison between the two countries, we must say, the disposal which the king of Prussia claimed, would be, as if our ministry, upon their own responsibility, without the concurrence of the representatives of the nation, were to make alterations in the destination of our churchlands. In Germany, the alteration could only proceed from the Diet, and never from the king of Prussia alone.

The case between the church and the king of Prussia is, therefore, simply this: the church claimed to be put into possession of their own property, in order to be rendered independent of the political Government; and the king insisted upon paying salaries, which were to assimilate the archbishop and his clergy with public functionaries paid by, and dependent upon Government. The value of the capital claimed by the church is no less than five millions of dollars, or 734,3757.