M. de Kisseleff having requested the Cardinal to put this

question in writing, in order that he might refer it to his Court and receive a precise answer, his Eminence enumerated in a note-verbale all the laws of the Empire which he thought it would be desirable to do away with, and of whose existence the Court of Rome had more than once pretended to be ignorant.*
* Report of M. do Kisscleff, dated 27th February (llth March), 1802, and its iiiclosures.
o
194
The answer of the Imperial Cabinet was not long waited for.
Whilst instructing M. de Kisseleff " to express the satisfaction of the Emperor at the choice of Mousignor Berardi, and the hope that the presence of this Prelate in Russia will enlighten His Holiness as to the spirit and tendencies of the acts of the Imperial Administration, and will dispel the prejudices which malice is attempting to raise up between the two Governments," the Vice- Chancellor of the Empire informed M. de Kisseleff by order of the Emperor, on 27th March, 1862—
" That the regulations in question did certainly extend to the Nuncios the principle which demands the mediation of the Imperial Government in all official communications of the Holy See with the clergy in the Empire and Kingdom ; that, in adopting that rule, which ought to be maintained, political considerations of a higher order were obeyed, and not any feeling of distrust or ill-will ; that the Sovereign, the only judge of the general interests of the State, amongst which those of religion have a title to all his attention, is himself alone able to appreciate the whole body of these interests, and to cause them to converge towards the final goal which lies before him —the welfare of the country.
" That if these principles apply to the official communications which the Pontifical Court is in a position to address to the clergy, there is all the more reason why they should apply to the communications of the Apostolic Nuncio, who is only the delegate and representative of the Holy See.
"And, lastly, that these principles, generally admitted, even in countries where the Catholic religion predominates, have not there been found irreconcileable with the presence of a permanent Nuncios."*
The Court of Home could not reasonably require the Sovereign of an empire in which the orthodox religion predominates to grant to the Apostolic Nuncios a wider prerogative than is enjoyed by the representatives of the Holy See in France, for instance, where the Roman Catholic religion is that of the State.
* Despatch of Prince Gortchakoff to M. de Kisseleff, dated the 27th March, 1862.
195
Now, the French legislation defines clearly the position of the Nuncio.
The first article of the organized constitutions, forming a continuation of the Concordat of 1801, and rigorously observed up to the present time, forbids all communication from the Court of Rome without the control of the Government.
The 2nd article of the same constitution is conceived as follows : "No individual calling himself Nuncio, Legate, Apostolic Vicar, or Commissioner, will be able, without being authorised by the Government, to exercise, either on French soil or else- where, any function relating to Church matters."
The 207th and 208th articles of the French penal code assign rigorous punishment (a fine of 500 francs, imprisonment from a month to two years' banishment) to any infringement of these laws.
A quite recent incident proves that the Sovereign Pontiff accepts these regulations of the French legislation, and orders his representatives to submit to them, and that the argument of "non possumus," laid down by the Court of Rome with regard to Russia, is not tenable in justice and logic.
When in 1865 the Apostolic Nuncio at Paris, Monsignor Chigi, addressed letters, by other than the legal channels to the Bishops of Orleans and Poitiers, which were published, the French Ambassador at Rome brought a complaint against this infringement of the existing laws. The Holy See hesitating about giving the required satisfaction, the French Government reiterated its demands. Monsignor Chigi was disavowed, and the Moniteur Unicersel of February 7 (19), 1865, stated that "the Nuncio expressed his regrets to his Majesty the Emperor at a private audience, and assured him that he never had intended to set aside the respect due to the rules of international law."
To explain the persistency with which the Court of Rome made demands which she knew well were inadmissible, to account for the delays, intentionally caused by her, in settling an affair which she had so much at heart a short time before, it will be sufficient to remember that at this very time the revived troubles in Poland had served as a starting-point and pretext for a course of diplomacy directed against Russia, the effects of which
o 2
196
will not be slow to manifest themselves in attempts, on the part of several of the European Cabinets, to meddle with the Home affairs of the Empire.
The Court of Rome, more than any other, adopted this course. There is every reason to believe that this was the chief cause for acts which it will be sufficient to enumerate to demonstrate with conclusive evidence that the origin and the responsibility of the existing rupture between the two Courts and the repeal of the Concordat of 1847, belong to the Pontifical Government.
At the very moment when the negotiations relating to the appointment of Nuncios were becoming complicated, and when the Imperial Cabinet was giving repeated proofs of its sincere intention of bringing them to an end, Pius IX., secretly and in opposition to the established laws of the Empire, wrote a letter to the new Archbishop of Warsaw, in which His Holiness took the place, so to speak, of the Sovereign of the country, and invited Monsignor Felinski to absent himself from his diocese to appear at Home at a moment when his presence scarcely sufficed to force the clergy of the kingdom to return to the fulfilment of their duties which they were neglecting more and more every day.
On informing M. de Kisseleff of this fresh infringement of in- ternational stipulations, the Yice- Chancellor again observed : —
" We sincerely wish for the most friendly relations with the Pontifical Government. We have given it proofs of this ; never- theless, I must needs tell you with profound regret, but with deep conviction, that the road which that Government seems desirous of taking is not that which leads to an understanding. If the Court of Rome chooses to take for granted, as a starting- point, that one concession ought to lead to others ad infinitum, she is giving herself up to an illusion which it is my duty, con- sidering the good understanding which we wish to bring about with her, to dispel at the onset."*
What is important to state is, that the clandestine commu- nications of the Holy See had the immediate effect of increasing the disturbances and encouraging the manifestations of the Polish clergy.
* Letter of Prince Gortchakoft' to M. de Kisseleff, llth April, 1862.
197
Scarcely had Monsignor Felinski received the Pope's letter than he thought he ought to release himself from all obedience to the authorities of the realm ; nay, he did not even care to keep on good terms with them.
The Government having been informed that the procession habitually celebrated at Warsaw on St. Mark's Day was going to be accompanied by disturbances, requested the Archbishop of Warsaw to allow the ceremony to take place this time inside the church, and not in the streets.
The Archbishop entrenched himself behind the question of principle, and, in spite of the repeated prayers of the authorities, in spite of prohibition published in the newspapers and communi- cated to each priest, he ordered the clergy to celebrate this pro- cession with unusual pomp.
The disorders that had been foreseen broke out, blood was nearly spilt in the streets of Warsaw, and when the Emperor's Lieutenant demanded explanations of Monsignor Felinski, this Archbishop answered : —
" That the clergy had acted by his orders ; that he himself would place himself at the head of future processions, in spite of any prohibition made by the Government ; that he absolutely disputed with the latter the right of forbidding the free exercise of religion ; that if he found it necessary he would go as far as to close the churches ; and lastly, that he ' preferred seeing 10,000 men dead on the ground ' to yielding one particle of the right which the canonical laws acknowledged to be his."
This language was reported at Home, but incurred no canonical disapprobation.
Moreover, at this period (April, 1863) the Holy See was openly associated with the diplomatic coalition organised against Russia.
Pius IX. on the 22nd April, 1863, despatched to His Majesty the Emperor a letter actuated by "the lively interest mani- fested on all sides both by nations and Governments in favour of Poland," in which letter after bavins: enumerated at length the pretended impediments placed in the way of the exercise of the Roman Catholic religion, His Holiness not only claimed for the Romish clergy prerogatives incompatible with the inde- pendence and the security of the State, as well as with the
198
exercise of the Sovereign's authority, but also the right of "direct- ing the people and exercising their influence on public instruction" (die il ckro ricuperi la sua influenza nel imegnamento e direzion
delpopolo.)
In a secret Consistory held at Rome on the 29th October, 1866, Pius IX. made the following assertion : —
" Neither the demands addressed to the Russian Government by our Cardinal- Secretary of State, nor the letters addressed by us to the Emperor, have had any result. Our letter of the 23rd of April, 1863, remains unanswered."
" Nihil autem valuernnt nosirce expostulationes per nostrum Cardinalem a publicis negotiis factfe apud ilium Gubernium, niliil nostrce Utter ce ad ipsum Serenissimum Principem scripts (22nd April, 1863) quibus nullum fuit datum responsirm" (" Roman Documents," Appendix C, p. 303.)
It is with deep regret that we are obliged to show the inaccu- racy of this assertion.
The Emperor received the letter in question April 29th, .1863. On the llth of May of the same year His Majesty despatched an answer to His Holiness which a special messenger conveyed to Rome, and which was placed in the hands of his Eminence Car- dinal Antonelli by M. de Kisseleff, on the 20 May (1 June,) 1863.
This letter of response was expressed in the following terms:
" Most Holy Father, — My Minister at Rome has transmitted to me the letter of your Holiness. I have read it with the attention that I always give to all communications which emanate from you, and whose subject is the important interests which you and I have to guard. Nevertheless, I regret that your Holiness speaks to me only of past acts. Your Holiness sees in certain unsatisfied claims of the Roman Catholic Church in the Kingdom of Poland the exclusive cause of the disorders which are actually afflicting that country. Yet there are few States in Europe which have been more cruelly tried by the attacks of revolution than those in which the Roman Catholic Church exercises unlimited authority. We must conclude from this that the evil has other causes. These I pai'tly laid before your Holiness when I drew your attention to the reprehensible behaviour, nay the crimes, of a large number of the Roman
199
Catholic clergy of the Kingdom of Poland. I did so, not to raise up grievances, but in the firm persuasion that it would suffice to enlighten your Holiness as to certain excesses sufficiently worthy of condemnation to cause you to find in your conscience the accents of indignation, and in your spiritual authority the influ- ence necessary to bring back to a sense of their duty those members of the clergy who had so seriously neglected it.
" This alliance of religious ministers with the abettors of dis- orders which threaten society is one of the most revolting acts of our age. Your Holiness ought to be as anxious as I am to bring it to an end.
" It was with the object of preventing so deplorable a situa- tion that I deferred to a constant wish of your Holiness and of your august predecessors, and expressed last year my approval of an Apostolic Nuncio. I regret the obstacles which, indepen- dent of my will, have put off up to the present time the realisa- tion of this project. I am still ready to receive an Envoy from your Holiness, and to welcome him with the cordial feelings which I desire to see presiding over our relations. I am convinced that a direct understanding, based on the Concordat concluded between my Government and that of your Holiness, would lead to the enlightnient which I desire, in order to dispel the misconceptions caused by erroneous or malicious reports, and would usefully serve the cause of political order and religious interests, which are inseparable at a period when both have to defend themselves from the attacks of revolution. Every act of my reign and my solici- tude for the spiritual wants of my subjects of every faith are a pledge for the sentiments which I shall infuse into it.
" I beg your Holiness to accept the repeated assurance of my high consideration, and sincere esteem.
(Signed) "ALEXANDER."
At the same time the Vice- Chancellor of the Empire instructed his Majesty's Minister at Rome to inform the Holy See that " as regards the position of the Nuncio at the Imperial Court, the Emperor is inclined to adopt as a rule the law in force in France, where the Roman Catholic religion is that of the country."