imprisoned within the limits of a programme which invaded the freedom of the Bishops. Nothing could be more opposed to the ancient rules of the Church. Never had the Holy See hitherto restricted, or rather suppressed, the lawful independence which Councils have always possessed in forming their own Congregations and choosing their own officials and regulating their own procedure. The history of these great Assemblies offers no precedent for the forms imposed to-day; and we have only too much reason to say that deliberations so arranged and conducted will only result in resolutions not to the real interest of the Church.[1]
We can well understand that the receipt of such a letter, from such a source, caused great uneasiness in the Papal Court. No wonder if, at the critical moment, when everything seemed in their grasp, they yet hesitated and delayed. The question to be determined at Rome was, What did this manifesto mean? Was this present attitude serious? a prelude to actions more serious still?[2] No wonder if Pius temporised, and diverted the attention of his Council for the moment to other themes. So the subject of faith was reintroduced. However, on 11th April, a telegram was received in Rome: "Daru resigned. Ollivier succeeds him. Council free." That is to say, of course, free from a papal point of view.
The fact was, that although Napoleon III. had no desire to promote the extension of papal power, yet in the weakness of the monarchy and increasingly republican tendencies of France, he could not afford to offend the Ultramontanes. He was therefore compelled by a cruel irony to protect the Pope, and enable him to reach the summit of absolute power. With-
