any deeds of this kind at full length, where any of these causes may be seen. It can only be gathered from what some authors say that these causes were either the houses were overwhelmed with debts, or the revenues had been ill-managed, or there had been committed crimes deserving a severer punishment, from which they were exempted on account of the surrender. Be this as it will, the King having resolved at any rate to suppress all the monasteries, the opposition of the abbots, priors, and monks would have been ineffectual. Accordingly, perceiving plainly that, by fair means or foul, they should be forced to submit to his will, the greatest part thought it most prudent to do it with a good grace, and make the best bargain they could for themselves. The abbot or prior, with the chief monks of each house, being gained beforehand either by promise or threats, the rest had hardly courage enough to make a fruitless resistance.

"The first suppression of the lesser monasteries was done by Act of Parliament. But the King was pleased this should appear to be entirely voluntary, as if the abbots, priors, and monks had been induced themselves to surrender their houses. A thing, however, so notoriously false, that not a soul could be ignorant how forced these surrenders were. It must be confessed, that herein Henry strangely abused the absolute power he had acquired over his subjects, of whom not a man dared publicly to find fault with his conduct, and still less openly to oppose his will. However, he used artifice to make this suppression of the monasteries to be received with less concern. Whilst the Commissioners were receiving the surrenders, he called a Parliament for the 28th of April; at the same time he caused a report to be spread that the kingdom was going to be invaded. He confirmed the report by going in person to visit the coasts, by commanding forts and redoubts to be built in several places, and by giving pressing orders to fit out a fleet, and keep the troops in a readiness to march upon the first notice. The intent of all these proceedings was, to let the people see that the Parliament would be obliged to lay heavy taxes to resist the pretended invasion; but that the King acquiring a large revenue by the suppression of the monasteries, would have no occasion for a subsidy. The yearly value of the religious houses amounted to one hundred fifty-one thousand (one hundred) pounds sterling, according to the rate they had been last farmed at. But, it must be observed, the abbots and priors, foreseeing the impending storm, had set the yearly rents very low, and raised the fines very high, that they might have wherewithal to subsist when they should be out of their houses. The King pretended not to mind it, being on the contrary very glad the people were not acquainted with the whole profit which accrued to him from these suppressions. Besides the rents of the lands belonging to the monasteries, the King had moreover a very considerable sum arising from the church ornaments (plate), goods, lead, bells, materials, which he thought not proper to have valued; but it may be judged of by this single article, namely, that in the Abbey of St. Edmund's-Bury alone, there were found five thousand marks of gold and silver in bullion.

"The ruin of the monks was a great occasion of joy and triumph

to those who had already embraced the Reformation, or who wished it could be embraced without danger. But they had not cause long to rejoice. Henry, resolving to show that, in abolishing the Papal authority, and destroying the monasteries, he had not changed his religion, gave very soon an unquestionable proof of it.

1539. "By another Act, the Parliament granted to the King the lands of the religious houses, which were supposed to have been freely surrendered to him. So this statute was rather a confirmation of what had been done, than an ordinance for the suppression of the monasteries. As the King had intimated that he intended to employ the revenues he had acquired, in useful foundations, the Parliament passed a Bill for giving him power to erect new bishoprics."

Miscellaneous.

GARIBALDI.-The "Augsburg Gazette" tells us also that Garibaldi is not only in bad health, but in low spirits, on account of the mysterious disappearance of a carpet-bag containing important papers, and among them his correspondence with the Duke of Sutherland. The bag was inexplicably lost on the General's journey back to Caprera, and is supposed to have been laid hold of by a secret agent of some Government.-Tablet, Aug. 20, 1864.

THE CUSTODY OF INFANTS.-Yesterday, at the Judges' Chambers, Mr. Justice Shee decreed that a father had a right to the custody of his child if ten years old; and the matter stood over for a week to arrange where the child should go to school, and the mother see her boy. Mr. Butler Rigby was counsel for the applicant. In this case the father was a Roman Catholic, and the mother a Protestant.-Standard, Sept. 10, 1864.

AN AUGUSTINIAN MONASTERY IN LONDON.-The ceremony of laying the foundation-stone of the new church of St. Monica, in connexion with the Irish Augustinian Monastery in Hoxton-square, is appointed to take place on Tuesday next, the 20th inst. The proceedings are to be conducted by the Very Rev. Dr. Hearn, V.G., and an address is to be delivered by the Very Rev. Monsignor Manning, Provost of Westminster. It is a curious fact that the old house now inhabited by the fathers was formerly a favourite place of resort of King Charles II., who had a house not far distant, between which and the house in question a subterranean passage communicated. Some traces of the passage are still discernible.-Daily Telegraph, Sept. 13, 1864.

THE DOG AND THE PONTIFF.-Under the heading of "Casi che non son casi" (accidents that are not accidents) several Italian journals publish, among other facts, the following:-An inhabitant of Francavilla, in the province of Lecce (Neapolitan provinces), animated with a sacrilegious contempt for the sacred person of the Pope, had given to his dog the name of Pius IX. On July the 14th, being alone in his room, he called as usual his dog, and, to amuse himself, made him stand up against the wall, as if on guard. As he irreverently jeered at the Sovereign Pontiff, the dog, as if indignant at such insolence, became furious, and, flying at his master, caught him by the throat, threw him on the ground, and ran away. The unfortunate man had hardly time to call for help. He was covered with blood. His wife and children came up at his cries, and heard from him how the accident had happened, shortly after which he died, without having received the Sacraments of the Church.-Tablet, Aug. 20, 1864.

THE POPE AND THE QUEEN.-(TO THE EDITOR OF THE "TIMES.")-Sir,Perhaps you will allow space for a few remarks on Lord Arundell of Wardour's

letter. His statement, "Undoubtedly there sometimes will be a conflict of jurisdiction as between the spiritual and temporal, principally on the debatable ground surrounding education and the family; and when it occurs, it is likely, I hope, that Catholics will be found to side with God rather than man, and obey the dictates of conscience rather than the mandates of the State," means simply that, when the interests of the Pope or the Roman Catholic Church are concerned, the authority of the Queen, or of the laws of the land, lose their influence with every Roman Catholic; and as there are very few matters, whether public or private, in which the Roman Catholic Church does not interfere, I cannot see that much reliance can be placed on the allegiance of her followers. Lord Arundell clearly enunciates the creed of Roman Catholics; and, as they thus cease to be free agents, and become only part of a great machine for crushing out all freedom of thought or action, many Protestants think, as I do, that it is dangerous to encourage, or even allow, the full development of a system which is so antagonistic to the whole spirit of the English Constitution -a system the shackles of which were cast off by this country at no small cost. Lord Arundell again says that this sentiment is not exclusively maintained by Roman Catholics, but by Protestants, &c. True, the religious convictions of Protestants often lead them to act in opposition to the State; but there ar several reasons why the State should treat such convictions differently when held by Protestants and Roman Catholics. For, with Protestants, they result from their own convictions; while, with Roman Catholics, they are but the decrees of the Pope or the Roman Catholic Church. Again, Protestants are divided into many small bodies; and even if the convictions of one of these lead it to act in opposition to the State, it is not strong enough to be dangerous. How different is the action of the Roman Catholic Church, with its 50,000 priests in Europe acting as one man, and directed by a foreign head whose interests must always be in opposition to the Protestant and liberal policy of England! In England and Scotland Roman Catholicism is in so small a minority that it assumes a milder form; in Ireland, where it is now nearly dominant, the ill-working of the system is hourly felt in its attempt to dictate in all private or public affairs. Only he who wears the shoe knows where it pinches, and it is only those who, in self-defence, live in a state of constant conflict with Roman Catholic policy who can feel how sincerely every liberal-minded man believes it to be his first duty to give it his most strenuous opposition.-I am, Sir, your obedient servant, ORAN MORE AND BROWNE. Troon, Scotland, Sept. 6.-Times, Sept. 8, 1864.

POPE OR QUEEN ?-(TO THE EDITOR OF THE "TIMES.")-Sir,-Lord Arundell of Wardour seems to me to obscure this subject with a cloud of words. The question lies in a nutshell. Do we drink the Pope's health in his spiritual capacity, or as a temporal sovereign? If the former, then I protest against the practice as unseemly, and, indeed, disrespectful to his high dignity. Indeed, it seems almost profane to "drink the health" of the Vicegerent of Christ upon earth. Besides, though of course in his spiritual capacity the Pope is superior to every monarch upon earth, yet so also is every bishop and every priest. Can the Queen give absolution or administer extreme unction? Now, we Catholics hold that the priest, as priest, is superior to every layman, and a fortiori to every woman. If, therefore, the Pope's health is drunk in his spiritual capacity, so also ought those of the bishops and priests, which are now invariably proposed after the Queen and Royal Family. If, on the other hand, the health of the Pope is drunk as a temporal prince, it needs no argu ment to show that it should follow that of the Sovereign of the country. It is much to be regretted that a certain portion of our people should have introduced this practice, as it tends very greatly to prejudice the minds of our Protestant fellow-countrymen against us, and to make them doubt our loyalty. The sooner the practice is altered the better, and the Holy Father is the last man in the world to be offended by the change.-I am, Sir, your obedient servant, AN ENGLISH CATHOLIC.-Sept. 12.-Times, Sept. 14, 1864.

PROTESTANT MAGAZINE.

NOVEMBER 1, 1864.

THE ARUNDEL AND ORANMORE CORRESPONDENCE.

THERE appeared not long since, in the "Times" newspaper, a rather remarkable correspondence. It seems to have been occasioned by a leading article in that Journal of the 31st of August, with reference to some observations of Dr. Goss. This gentleman is called in the "Tablet" the Bishop of Liverpool, and after laying the foundation-stone of a new church at Euxton, on Sunday, the 28th of August, he addressed the concourse of people, about 3,000, at considerable length, in the course of which he defended Roman Catholics against the charge of giving a divided allegiance to the Crown. The "Tablet" says:—

"We are all indebted to the Times' for the extensive circulation which it has given to language and sentiments, which are exactly what we should like all our countrymen to hear and believe about us. And again we are obliged to the Times' for its leading article upon the Bishop's speech, because that has drawn forth the following letter from Lord Arundel, of Wardour, which exactly puts the matter in dispute before the public upon its true footing. Lord Arundel writes to the Editor of the Times' on the Pope and the Queen." says:

666

He

SIR,-Your article in the "Times" of this morning conveys the idea that you are not aware of the grounds upon which the Catholic body drink the toast of "Pius IX." before the toast of "The Queen." Having occasionally presided at Catholic meetings when this has been done, I may assert that it is only upon the distinction between the Spiritual and the Temporal, and the superiority of the one order over the other.

"So far from contemplating any conflict of jurisdiction as between one Sovereign Prince (a foreign Prince) and another (our own Sovereign), it presupposes that each has its own sphere, but that the sphere of one is superior to that of the other. Undoubtedly there sometimes will be a conflict of jurisdiction as between the spiritual and the temporal, principally on the debateable ground surrounding education and the family, and when it occurs it is likely, I hope, that Catholics will be found to side with God rather than man, and obey VOL. XXVI. New Series, No. 288.

N

the dictates of conscience rather than the mandates of the State. The sentiment is as old as Christianity, and as inveterate as martyrdom. It is not exclusively maintained by Catholics, but by Protestants, whenever their persuasions attain the strength of principles and convictions. It was conspicuously asserted by the non-jurors, and, indeed, the traditional toast of "Church and State,' as plainly involves it as the Catholic custom of drinking the Pope's health before the Queen's. Your theory would expunge the idea of martyrdom altogether, and (however intended) is tacitly a reproach to the conduct of the early Christians themselves. On the other hand, however my sentiments may be characterised by my countrymen, I shall continue to regard myself as a good citizen, on the ground that I am upholding the only principle which indicates the dignity of the individual and prevents his absorption in the State, as in the Pagan times; and that I am adhering to the only power which has been able to rescue the individual from the omnipotence of the State, and which alone at this moment opposes itself to the centralisation of Governments and kingdoms, which is the tendency of modern times, and which is the natural consequence of that "Statolatrie" which is again becoming the passion of mankind.

66 6

"I am, Sir, your obedient Servant,

"ARUNDEL OF WARDOUR.

"Brown's Hotel, Dover-street, Aug. 31.'"

Lord Oranmore and Browne replied to this letter, and the Times had another powerful leading article on the subject. The "Dublin Review," for October, page 521, thus writes:"We are disposed to reprint here an excellent letter lately addressed to the Times' by Lord Arundel of Wardour; and this for two reasons partly as illustrating such views on the relation between Church and State as have been advocated in our fifth article, and partly as showing by example how efficient a defence of Catholic doctrine may often be put forth by a Catholic Layman who has been well grounded therein."

The letter is then given in extenso, but inasmuch as supremacy in spiritual matters often involves supremacy in temporal matters, and as we see the Romish Hierarchy in this land outraging the law of the land in conformity with the requirements of their faith, we do not see how Romanists can justly claim to be equally loyal with Protestants, who recognise no power on the face of the whole earth superior to the law of the land and the sovereign ruler of the country, and hold that "the Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this realm of England."

EXTRAORDINARY PROCEEDINGS IN A NUNNERY.

THE Corriere delle Marche of Ancona has an account of some extraordinary proceedings which have just occurred in the convent of