This bill, in the form in which it was introduced in 1876, divided murder into two degrees, and made infanticide by the mother within seven days of birth murder of the second class, and punishable with penal servitude. The period of seven days was borrowed from the obscure provision of the commissioners mentioned above; but the obscurity was removed by distinctly placing such infanticide among murders of the second class. The bill also restored the power of recording sentence; so that in those numerous cases where the child is more than seven days old, although the murder would technically belong to the first degree, the judge would not in fact have to pass capital sentence upon the mother. Faults of detail were pointed out in this measure; but its treatment of infanticide was not unsatisfactory. It is so certain that a judge who had the right to record sentence would not pronounce it in those cases which we have shown to be really no longer capital, that the punishment of death might, without serious harm, be allowed to remain in the statute-book. But in the form in which the bill reappears in the present session the recording clause' is withdrawn, and the bill therefore does nothing to diminish the conflict between law and practice in all those cases where the child is above seven days old. 6 The Attorney-General, in the opposition which he felt himself compelled to offer to Sir E. Wilmot's measure of 1876, uttered some expressions which, if used of malice aforethought,' give no favourable idea of Sir John Holker's intentions as a law reformer. The division of murders,' he said, 'is objectionable; it is better to leave the less heinous cases to the mercy of the Crown. The law may not be perfect, but it works well enough.' That the mercy of the Crown -that is, the discretion of the Home Secretary-may with advantage be exercised in the case of certain murders which are really upon the border-line, we are all agreed; but it is most unjustifiable to keep up this fiction in a class of cases for which capital punishment has long been obsolete. It is here no question of mercy' or 'discretion' We understand very well what a custom means in England. Let any Home Secretary try the experiment of withholding the mercy of the Crown' in one of these cases of infanticide, and we know very well what would become of him. If the Attorney-General had been present at Mahoney's trial, if he had witnessed that indignant pity and sense of wrong which within three days united every sect and every rank of life in one eloquent appeal upon the victim's behalf, he would not again say that the law worked 'well enough.' Criminals and their friends have their rights as well as other people. The reform which the actual state of facts calls for is obvious enough, and such a reform public opinion ought to demand at the hands of Government. at all. 6 C. A. FYFFE. VOL. I.-No. 4. SS THE TRUE STORY OF THE VATICAN COUNCIL. No. IV. THE additional chapter on the Infallibility of the Head of the Church was distributed, as we have seen, on the 7th of March, and in the last days of April the amendments of the bishops on the schema on the Primacy and the Infallibility of the Roman Pontiff were printed and distributed to the Council. The schema consisted of an introduction and four chapters, of which the first related to the institution of the primacy in the person of S. Peter, the second to its perpetuity in his successors, the third to the nature and character of the primacy, and the fourth to the infallibility attached to the primacy. The general discussion on this schema opened on the 13th of May by a report of the Commission on Faith: it lasted through fourteen sessions-that is, from the 14th of May to the 3rd of June. By that time it had become evident that the general discussion of the subject was exhausted. Not a new argument was to be heard: the old were endlessly repeated. The general discussion had anticipated even the special discussions on the chapters. Sixty-four had spoken. A hundred more had put down their names to speak. But inasmuch as there were five special discussions yet to come, in every one of which every one of the 700 members of the Council might speak-that is to say, in all, each one five times-it was obvious that to continue the general discussion was only to talk against time. The hundred bishops whose names were down had still the privilege of speaking each one of them five times more-that is, on the introduction and the four chapters. The remaining 600 in the Council, besides, might do the same. In all human affairs the limits of common sense must be respected at last. By the regulations of the Council, or, as we should say, by the order of the House, any ten bishops might petition the presidents, not indeed to close the discussion, but to do, what any single member of our Legislature may effect, to put it to the vote of the whole Council whether the discussion should be continued or closed. A petition was sent in signed not by ten but by a hundred or a hundred and fifty bishops; and the question of closing was put to the Council, which, by an immense majority, put an end to the general debate. Then began the special discussions. On the introduction and the first two chapters there was little to be said. On the introduction seven spoke, on the first chapter five, on the second only three. On the 9th of June began the debate on the third chapter, in which thirty-two spoke. The introduction, together with the first, second, and third chapters, and the amendments proposed, were then sent back to the Commission of Faith. On the 15th of June began the discussion of the fourth chapter-that is, on the infallibility, which occupied eleven sessions, during which fifty-seven spoke. No one asking permission to speak further, the discussion closed, and the chapter, with the amendments, was sent to the Commission as before. The whole time given to this discussion extended over nearly seven weeks-that is, from the 14th of May to the 4th of July. The introduction and the first two chapters were then reported and accepted almost unanimously. On the third chapter the amendments were seventy-two, which were reported on the 5th of July. Many were accepted, but many were further amended twice or three times, and the whole chapter was sent back once more to the Commission for further revision. Then on the 11th of July the report was made on the fourth chapter, relating to the infallibility, on which ninety-six amendments had been proposed. A new title and three new paragraphs had been added to it by way of introduction. On the 13th of July the third and fourth chapters were passed by a great majority. The whole schema was then printed again and distributed to the Council, and the final vote was taken. There were present 601 fathers of the Council. The Placets, or ayes, were 451; the Non placets, or noes, were 88; the Placets juxta modum, that is aye with modifications, were 62. These written amendments, to the number of 163, were sent as usual to the Commission. They were examined and reported on the 16th of July. Many were adopted, together with two amendments proposed by the commission. The whole was then reprinted and distributed, put once more to the vote, and passed. In the same General Congregation a protest was read by the Cardinal President, which was to the following effect: MOST REVEREND FATHERS, : From the time that the Holy Vatican Synod opened by the help of God, the bitterest warfare instantly broke out against it; and in order to diminish its venerable authority with the faithful, and, if it could be, to destroy it altogether, many writers vied with each other in attacking it by contumelious detraction and by the foulest calumnies; and that, not only among the heterodox and open enemies of the cross of Christ, but also among those who give themselves out as sons of the Catholic Church, and, what is most to be deplored, even among its sacred ministers. The infamous falsehoods which have been heaped together in this matter in public newspapers of every tongue, and in pamphlets without the authors' names, published in all places and stealthily distributed, all men well know, so that we have no need to recount them one by one. But among anonymous pamphlets of this kind there are two especially, written in French, and entitled Ce qui se passe au Concile, and La dernière heure du Concile, which, for the arts of calumny and the license of detraction, bear away the palm from all others. For in these not only are the dignity and full liberty of the Council assailed with the basest falsehoods, and the rights of the Holy See denied, but even the august person of our Holy Father is attacked with the gravest insults. Wherefore we, being mindful of our office, lest our silence, if longer maintained, should be perversely interpreted by men of evil will, are compelled to lift up our voice, and before you all, most reverend fathers, to protest and to declare all such things as have been uttered in the aforesaid newspapers and pamphlets to be altogether false and calumnious, whether in contempt of our Holy Father and of the Apostolic See, or the dishonour of this Holy Synod, and on the score of its asserted want of legitimate liberty. From the Hall of the Council, the 16th day of July, 1870. PHILIP, CARDINAL DE ANGELIS, President. ANDREW, CARDINAL Bizzari. ALOYSIUS, CARDINAL BILIO. HANNIBAL, CARDINAL CAPALTI. Whether history will ever record by whose hands the works here censured by name were written cannot now be said. I am glad that it does not fall to my lot to reveal them. The Council had been enveloped for eight months in a cloud of all manner of publications, from pamphlets to articles in newspapers sufficiently near to the truth to impose upon the world at large, and so far from the truth as to be calumniously false. Nobody was spared. The chief torrent of misrepresentation broke upon the august head of the Church, and fell upon all that were near to him in the measure of their nearness. Not only acts which were never done, words that were never spoken, motives that were never thought of, were imputed to those of the majority whose duty forced them to choose truth before popularity. The majority in the Council was a minority compared with their assailants, who by every form of opposition attacked them through eight long months. But they were supported by two things-the consciousness that the unbroken tradition of Divine Revelation was at their back, and that the sympathy of the Catholic Church throughout the world surrounded them on every side. Therefore they were silent till the conflict was over, and the work was done. With this final act closed the 85th General Congregation of the Council. There remained only one further act to do, the fourth Public Session. The summer heat had long begun to affect the health of the Council. Many of the bishops had been compelled by illness to return home; many were still in Rome, but unable to attend the It was therefore desired by a great sessions; some were dead. majority that the fourth Public Session should be held without delay. To this was added the daily expectation of war between France and Prussia. On the evening of the 17th, fifty-five bishops signed a declaration announcing their intention not to appear at the Public Session. On the next day it was believed that they left Rome. Tuesday, the eighteenth of July, was fixed for the Public Session. It was held with all the usual solemnities, Pius the Ninth presiding in person. After the solemn mass the Holy Scriptures were placed open upon the lectern on the high altar, the Veni Creator was sung as usual. The Bishop of Fabriano then read the Decree de Romano Pontifice from the ambo, and the undersecretary of the Council called on every father of the Council by name to vote. Each, as his name was called, took off his mitre, rose from his seat, and voted. There were present 535; of these 533 voted Placet, 2 only voted Non placet. The scrutators and the secretary of the Council, having counted up the votes, went up to the throne, and declared that all the fathers present, two only excepted, had voted for the decree. The Pontiff then confirmed the decree in the usual words. In a brief address to the Council he prayed that the few who had been of another mind in a time of agitation might in the season of calm be reunited to the great majority of their brethren, and contend with them for the truth. The words of the allocution were as follows: Great is the authority residing in the Supreme Pontiff, but his authority does not destroy, but build up; it does not oppress, but sustain, and very often it has to defend the rights of our brethren the bishops. If some have not been of this mind with us, let them know that they have judged in agitation. But let them bear in mind that the Lord is not in the storm (3 Kings xix. 11). Let them remember that a few years ago they held the opposite opinion, and abounded in the same belief with us, and in that of this most august assembly, for then they judged in 'the gentle air.' Can two opposite consciences stand together in the same judgment? Far from it. Therefore we pray God that He who alone can work great things may Himself illuminate their minds and hearts, that all may come to the bosom of their father, the unworthy Vicar of Jesus Christ on earth, who loves them, and desires to be one with them, and united in the bond of charity to fight with them the battles of the Lord; so that not only our enemies may not deride us, but rather be afraid, and at length lay down the arms of their warfare in the presence of Truth, and that all may say with S. Augustine, 'Thou hast called me into thy wonderful light, and behold I see.' The Te Deum was then sung, and the pontifical benediction closed both the fourth Public Session of the Council of the Vatican and a conflict which for centuries had troubled the peace of the Church. In the first voting before the Public Session, 601 fathers of the Council voted. Of these 451 voted for the decree, 88 against it, and 62 for it juxta modum, or aye conditionally. In the fourth Public Session 535 voted: 55 absented themselves, which would raise the number to 590. Eleven were absent, from what cause is unknown; but as permission had been given some days before to leave Rome, they may have set out on their journey homeward. In |