nately the cardinal made a canonical slip in sending the same paper to the secular clergy and to the monastic: the latter are not responsible to him for their conduct quâ monks, but only quâ parish priests. They therefore held an indignation meeting and protested, with the result that a new form had to be printed which distinguished between their parochial property and income and their monastic affairs, and only demanded an account of the former. Needless to say the answers were very discreet: the Dominicans, it was said, claimed all their business as private.
On the whole the relation of the secular clergy to their archbishop[1] may be described as one of good-natured tolerance; he was not popular in Salford, and he is not popular in the South—in fact, few bishops (if any) are popular with their clergy. He is kind and familiar, and always leaves a good impression after a visit to a priest: he is always much less inflexible than his predecessor—indeed it is complained that he is too easily influenced—and nobody doubts his earnestness and sincerity. He had the misfortune, however, to step into the shoes of a great man, and he has, perhaps, acted unwisely in en-
- ↑ It may be well to explain that the dignity of cardinal is not necessarily connected with episcopal authority: Cardinal Newman, for instance, was not a bishop. The college of cardinals simply represents the clergy of the Bishop of Rome: thus there are cardinal-priests, cardinal-deacons, and cardinal sub-deacons, Cardinals, as such, have no function or jurisdiction; neither have monsignori.
