claim on any portion of the property of any British or Irish establishment here, he has his remedy in a court of law, should he succeed to make good his claim. But for any Government, whose duty it is to protect public order and the rights of all, to call on peaceable citizens or communities, to prove their titles to the properties of which they are known by all to be the proprietors, and which no one has presumed to impugn, would be an odious tyranny, and would afford grounds to suspect that it was resorted to for ulterior designs of rapine or spoliation.

There are special reasons which, as they are well known, I need not mention, why Her Majesty's Representative should keep these observations in view in protecting the rights as well as the properties of British subjects and their establishments in Rome under the present circumstances, as the latter claim a full and efficacious protection from their Government of all their property and rights. Anything short of this, far from being a protection, would only expose them to endless troubles and vexation, by which I feel confident Her Majesty's Government, in their just appreciation of the rights of their subjects, will not permit the British and Irish Ecclesiastical Establishments of Rome to be molested.

Sir,

Inclosure 4 in No. 87.

Mr. Jervoise to Dr. Kirby.

Palazzo Chigi, Rome, November 5, 1870. I HAVE to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 4th instant, together with the Memorandum of the properties of the British Ecclesiastical Establishments in Rome.

As some mistaken idea seem to exist with regard to the object with which these details have been asked for, I wish to disclaim any desire to give an inquisitorial character to my inquiries. My desire has been to ask only for such information as seemed to me best suited to insure that scrupulous respect for all the property belonging to our National Establishments, which I have every reason to believe they will meet with; and my letter of the 28th ultimo, distinctly limits the scope of the information with which I was desirous of being furnished for the present at any rate.

But a sine qua non to obtaining that full respect for their just rights must be that no claim shall be put forward which will not bear, should need be, a close investigation; and will remember that in the first Memorandum with which I was furnished were you included some claims which, upon further inquiry, it was admitted would not have borne such a scrutiny, and the admittance of which would most assuredly have tended to raise very serious difficulties with regard to such claims as are genuine.

In talking the matter over with the Superiors of the Establishments to which I allude, I assured them that I had no wish to exclude them if they believed they could establish a genuine claim, and that upon receiving a requisition from them to that effect, I would not fail to submit their cases also in the proper quarter.

H. CLARKE JERVOISE,

I am, &c.

(Signed)

No. 88.

Sir,

Sir G. Bowyer, M.P., to Mr. Hammond.-(Received November 14.)

Temple, November 11, 1870.

IN acknowledging the receipt of your letter of the 7th instant, I feel it my duty to say that the just and truly liberal course which Her Majesty's Government have pursued in the important matter to which that letter relates, deserves the cordial gratitude of the Roman Catholics of the United Kingdom.

I have, &c.

My Lord,

No. 89.

Mr. Jervoise to Earl Granville.-(Received November 15.)

Rome, November 9, 1870.

I HAD the honour in a previous despatch to report to your Lordship that an application had been made to Cardinal Antonelli to surrender the keys of the Pope's apartments at the Quirinal, which were locked, and that his Eminence was firmly resolved that he would not accede to this demand, and accordingly retained the keys in his possession.

The right of the Papal Government to maintain their ground that the palace of the Quirinal was not State property, but had always been considered as the peculiar property of the Pope at the time occupying the Papal Chair, has been the subject of further consideration on the part of General La Marmora and his advisers, and has resulted in a decision adverse to the claims of the Papal Authorities.

Accordingly, on the morning of the 8th instant, after a further notice sent to the Cardinal Secretary of State, the seals which had been placed by the Italian Government on these apartments were removed, and the locks of the doors forced by a blacksmith, and the persons deputed for the purpose proceeded to take an inventory of their

contents.

Cardinal Antonelli has sent to me the accompanying protest against this act, in which he requests that it may be communicated to Her Majesty Government, and invokes their aid in putting an end to the proceedings of the Italian Government. I have the honour to transmit this document in original for your Lordship's information, accompanied by a translation and a copy of my reply. I have, &c.

IN addition to the violations already perpetrated by the Government at Florence against the dominions of the Holy See, another act has been effected to the prejudice of the private possessions of the Roman Pontiffs.

General La Marmora, in announcing to the undersigned Cardinal Secretary of State by a letter of the 7th instant, that the Council of Ministers, after mature examination, had unanimously resolved that the Palace of the Quirinal ought to be considered as appertaining to the domain of State, requested him to make arrangements that the said domain should be made over by the surrender of the keys, and the appointment of some person who should attend the necessary formalities and the taking the inventory of the furniture and articles there found; for which purpose he appointed the following day and fixed the hour.

It causes real surprise that a Council of Ministers should constitute itself the judge for defining the right of property of other persons, and especially with regard to a palace belonging to the Roman Pontiffs, and which, being their residence, is called Apostolic; which for the last three centuries has been used as their summer residence, and which has been devoted for some time past to the service of Conclaves, and the Apostolic Secretariats.

The Undersigned, strong in the validity and incontrovertibility of the arguments which enabled him to reject the application, and moreover in the exercise of his duty as still Prefert of the Sacred Apostolic Palaces, has not hesitated to declare that he would never lend himself to any act which could indicate, however remotely, that he consented to a spoliation of this nature, and he consequently refused to deliver up the keys of the apartments of the Holy Father, on the doors of which seals had already been arbitrarily placed.

Notwithstanding this declaration, however, and contrary to the respect and prerogatives of sovereignty and immunity, of extra-territoriality and princely pre-eminence ("preminenze") with which it is pretended to make the world believe that it is intended to invest the Supreme Head of the Church, General La Marmora has proceeded to the most reprehensible violence, whereby, scarcely had the appointed hour expired, his delegates forced the locks of the doors, and entered and took possession of the Palace of the Quirinal, the property of the Roman Pontiffs.

Therefore the Holy Father not having it in his power to make a resistance to force, and not wishing to prejudice his right of property in the aforesaid palaces and over all the effects contained therein, has commanded the Cardinal Secretary to issue his formal protest and to communicate it to you, with the request that you will forward it to your Government with a view to convincing them the more certainly of the outrages to which His Holiness is subjected, and to move them to lend their assistance towards putting an end, once for all, to the insupportable state of affairs created in his dominions by the. Government of Florence.

The Cardinal Secretary avails, &c.

(Signed)

G. ANTONELLI.

Inclosure 2 in No. 89.

Mr. Jervoise to Cardinal Antonelli.

M. le Cardinal, Rome, November 9, 1870. I HAVE the honour to acknowledge the receipt of the note of this day's date, which your eminence has been pleased to address to me on the subject of the proceedings of General La Marmora with respect to the Palace of the Quirinal, and I hasten to assure your Eminence that I have lost no time in communicating this document to the Government of Her Britannic Majesty.

H. CLARKE JERVOISE.

I avail, &c.

Signed)

No. 90.

My Lord,

Mr. McMahon, M.P., to Earl Granville.-(Received November 16.)

Temple, November 14, 1870. ON behalf of the Franciscan Order of Ireland, I ask your favourable consideration of a Memorial from them, presented through the Earl of Granard, praying for the protection of their property in Rome, particularly in their College of St. Isidore. In the interest of the Irish teachers and students in that house, I venture to express a hope that your Lordship will use every effort to save it from loss or detriment through the conduct of the Italian Government.

I have, &c.

(Signed)

P. MAC MAHON.

No. 91.

Mr. Hammond to Lord Granard.

My Lord.

Foreign Office, November 21, 1870. I AM directed by Earl Granville to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 17th instant, inclosing one addressed to yourself, and to Messrs. D'Arcy and Power, the Members for Wexford, by the Provincial of the Franciscan Order in Ireland, expressing the hope that Her Majesty's Government will afford to the members of that Order, as British subjects, protection for the preservation of their property and religious and educational foundations in Rome, which they apprehend are threatened with confiscation by the Italian Government, and expressing the anxiety of Catholics in general throughout Ireland on this subject, as well as for the protection of other religious and educational establishments in Rome.

Lord Granville directs me to assure you that the question of the protection of such establishments and property has already engaged the attention of Her Majesty's Government, and that on the 25th of last month Her Majesty's Minister at Florence reported that in consequence of a communication from Mr. Jervoise, who is in charge of British interests at Rome, from which it appeared that certain British ecclesiastics at the head of religious establishments having property in Rome entertained fears similar to those expressed by the Franciscan Order in Ireland, Sir Augustus Paget had taken an opportunity of speaking to M. Visconti Venosta upon the subject, and had received from him the most emphatic assurance that all property belonging to British subjects

would be respected by the Italian Government, which assurance had been repeated by the Italian Minister upon a subsequent occasion.

I am to add, that further steps have been taken by Mr. Jervoise with a view to furnishing the Italian Government with a list of religious establishments at Rome belonging to British subjects, with an account of the property attached to them; the Italian Government having expressed a desire to be supplied with this information.

I am, &c.

Sir,

Mr. Hammond to Mr. Mac Mahon, M.P.

Foreign Office, November 24, 1870.

I AM directed by Earl Granville to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 14th instant, requesting his Lordship's favourable consideration of a requisition addressed to Lord Granard by the Provincial of the Franciscan Order in Ireland, praying for the protection of Her Majesty's Government in regard to their property and religious establishments in Rome, which they apprehend are threatened with confiscation by the Italian Government.

I am now to inform you, in answer to your letter, that in reply to Lord Granard's representation to Lord Granville upon the same subject, his Lordship has been assured that the question of the protection of such establishments and property had already engaged the attention of Her Majesty's Government, and that on the 25th ultimo Her Majesty's Minister at Florence reported, that in consequence of a communication from Mr. Jervoise, who is in charge of British interests at Rome, from which it appeared that certain British ecclesiastics at the head of religious establishments having property at Rome, entertained fears similar to those expressed by the Franciscan Order in Ireland, Sir Augustus Paget had taken an opportunity of speaking to M. Visconti Venosta upon the subject, and had received from his Excellency the most emphatic assurance that all property belonging to British subjects would be respected by the Italian Government, which assurance had been repeated by the Italian Government upon a subsequent

occasion.

I am to add, that further steps have been taken by Mr. Jervoise with a view to furnishing the Italian Government with a list of religious establishments at Rome belonging to British subjects, together with an account of the property attached to them, the Italian Government having expressed a desire to be supplied with this information. I am, &c.

Sir A. Paget to Earl Granville.-(Received November 29.)

My Lord, Florence, November 16, 1870. WITH reference to my despatch of the 6th instant, I have the honour to inclose herewith copies and translations of a correspondence which has taken place between the Rector of the Roman College and the King's Lieutenant in Rome, and which has resulted in the closing of two Jesuit schools of that College for all Lay subjects of the King of Italy.

YOUR letter of the 6th instant intimates to me the closing of the schools as far as regards lay Italian subjects, alleging as a reason for this measure that we have dis

regarded both the dispositions of the Law of the 13th November, 1859, and the special warning contained in the note sent to me on the 2nd instant.

I must remark in the first place that I at once conformed to this intimation, by making known to lay Italians the orders I had received in order that they might take measures for their instruction elsewhere. I may, therefore, be allowed to give expression to the profound surprise which I experienced on reading the second note and confronting it with the first.

In the first, with respect to the instruction imparted to laymen, subjects of the Italian kingdom, I did not and I do not find any further warning than this; that, "it is not valid either for the (educational) institutions or for the service of the State," a warning which was elsewhere given in a very explicit manner, viz., in the "Official Roman Gazette" of the 3rd November, in a notification of the Curator Gabelli, informing the public, "the course of lectures followed in the Jesuit schools, as far as it regards preparation for admission into Government institutions, whether Lyceums or Universities, and into the services of the State, is not legally valid, as this course is not in accordance with the instruction given by the Government." But in the second note, which is a résumé of the first, there is substituted in the place of their clear and explicit declarations another phrase, the indefinite extension of which does not give me an equally precise and circumscribed conception of its contents. For your Excellency there states that you warned me that in respect of this instruction: "You are obliged to make all legal reservations." A phrase, which might comprehend much more than your first very clear declaration, and was therefore, at least for me and for the practical use I could make of it, very different from it. Indeed, if your Excellency had used this phrase in your note of November 2, as you afterwards substituted it in that of the 6th, I should not have neglected making diligent inquiries as to these legal reservations with a view of regulating my conduct in accordance with them.

I further find cited in both notes the Law of November 13, 1859, which is said to have been promulgated in the Roman Provinces by a Royal Decree of the 26th of October, but, though I have searched the "Official Gazette" from the 26th October to the 2nd November (the day on which your Excellency reminded me of the promulgation as an accomplished fact), and though I have made inquiries of persons cognizant of these matters, I have not been able to discover the said promulgation.

My surprise was then unmeasurably increased when I read to-day in the "Official Gazette" of Rome of the 7th instant the promulgation of the Law cited in the two notes of your Excelleney. You can, therefore, imagine the extent of my regret at this anachronism; since, in the note of the 6th, I find myself reproved for the non-observance of a law which I only find published on the 7th; and in intimation of the closing of the course of study already commenced as a penalty of my non-observance of it. And my regret is all the keener because I see in No. 19 of the "Official Gazette," dated October 11th, that this promulgation will be made by insertion in its columns: whence it follows that I am unable to comprehend how I can be accused of the non-observance of a law which was not yet in existence.

Meanwhile the publication of the said law. has given me the means of examining it, and it has appeared to me that, even if my supposed fault had not been anterior to the regular promulgation of the law, my conduct has not been at all opposed to its stipulations.

It seems to me indeed that Article 245 is alone applicable to this case; and for this opinion I find valid grounds in your Excellency's first note for I see that you, supposing the law already promulgated, only called my attention to this Article. Now it is ordained in this Article No. 245, that institutions belonging to moral entities cannot pretend to be placed, as regards the instruction which they give, on the same footing as the Institu-tions abovementioned, &c. This order agrees admirably with the declaration made to me by your Excellency in your first note of November 2, and repeated by the Curator Gabelli in the "Official Gazette" of November 3, and confines itself to this, that the course of lectures followed by Lay Italians in the schools of the Congregation of Jesuits have no legal value: and this appears to me to be the only regulation which affects their method of teaching.

Premising these considerations, which, in good faith and according to the rules of common sense I hold to be most valid, I think it my duty to renew to your Excellency my very regretful protest against the severe measure which you have been pleased to adopt in view of a fault which I cannot discover in my conduct.

1st. Because the Law was not then promulgated, and could not consequently be either known to me or obligatory upon me.

2ndly. Because, supposing the law to be in force, Articles 246 and 247, which are