that this sovereignty is necessary to that
so-called spiritual function, which it is sought to
maintain for him. Those who dispute this, and
maintain that a non-sovereign pontiff might far
more efficaciously than a temporal prince exercise
all the functions of a universal bishop, may
be divided into real enemies of the Papacy
altogether, who think it wise policy to mask their
attacks under this pretence; and such pious
Catholics as look to the possibility of a real and
true head of their Church, exercising only really
and truly spiritual functions. Now we would
take our place from the stand-point of these
latter. Of course a Protestant thinks that the
Pope, and his power, and his doctrines, are
pernicious altogether, and argues the matter with a
view to the total sweeping away with the whole
of them. But it is not fair to look at the matter
from this point of view in a statement of the
case that purposely avoids the theological part
of the subject. To the serious Catholic, therefore,
who pictures to himself a pontiff unhampered
by state affairs and temporal considerations,
exercising the functions of a universal
overseer of souls in apostolic fashion, we would
reply that such functions are not those which
the present defenders of the Papacy are anxious
to preserve. The despots of Europe, who prop
the Pope's temporal power, require in return for
their support a quite other use of his spiritual
pretensions. And one of the greatest "wrongs"
of which the Pope has been and is daily guilty,
is the prostitution and degradation of what
should be a spiritual power into a mere
sham-spiritual exercise of influence for the behoof of
monarchs, who, in return, guarantee him the
principality he could not hold a day without
their aid. A sovereign position is necessary for
the commander-in-chief of an army spread over
the face of Europe, and everywhere engaged in
giving that support to despotism, which is paid
for no otherwise than by affording the material
support of the secular arm to the Pope's
despotism at home. Let the Pope become a simple
bishop, however universal, and the whole of this
mutual support system falls to the ground. Well
may the potentates, who are interested in the
preservation of their hierarchical allies, and who
read the signs of the times more sagaciously
than they do, implore the Pope to "reform''
matters to such a degree as to render the duration
of him and of their dealings with him possible.
They can read the signs of the times, but
are ignorant of the degree of the rottenness,
which makes reform impossible to the Pope.
He is less aware of the impossibility of existing
as he is, but knows full well that such putting
of new wine into old bottles, as is recommended
to him, would shatter them to pieces. The
birthright of the Pope was, from a pious Catholic
point of view, indeed a glorious one; but he
has long since sold it for a mess of Mammon's
potage. And now, though, after the usual
fashion of devil's bargains, the potage be taken
away from him, the birthright will assuredly not
be given back by those who bought it.

Of the deplorable spiritual evils which the
Pope has caused in Europe generally, and in ltaly
especially, by turning his bishopric into a
temporal despotism, very much might be said. But
it would lead us to trench on that theological
ground, which we have deemed it best to
avoid.

As the sum total, therefore, of the long bill
of wrong done by the Pope, which M. de Montalembert has asked for, it may he said, that he
has so degraded his episcopacy by the abominations of an imbecile and unprincipled temporal
despotism, that it is no longer capable of doing
aught but injury to the faith it should teach and
protect; and that the special vices of unfaithful
sacerdotalism have rendered his temporal
government a scandal to Europe, and an utterly
intolerable burden to the victims of it.

These, M. de Montalembert, are the wrongs
which Pope Pius the Ninth has done.

OUR EYE-WITNESS IN BAKER-STREET.

THIS is decidedly a world of phases, and
assuredly a bovine phase is on your Eye-witness.
It was only the other day that his destiny mixed
him up with the Performing Bull, and now he
finds himself in the Cattle Show, and in a perfect
atmosphere of Bulls. There must be something
Zodiacal in this stroke of Fate. Taurus must
have broken into the house of Aries in the
twelfth month; or Capricornus has been getting
the upper hand; or it is all Gemini—in a word,
the attention of scientific persons and those
learned in horoscopes is invited.

Treating of Fate and Destiny. It has been
the unfortunate Destiny of the Eye-Witness to
discover that one of the stories related when he
was with " ertain Story Tellers," as set forth at
page 154 of this journal, is to be found in its
integrity in a collection of tales published, some
years ayo, by MR. ALBERT SMITH, in a volume
called The Wassail Bowl. For Mr. Albert
Smith, the writer has a high personal as well as
public esteem; and if he had recognised the
story as originally that gentleman's, he would
have explained that his reference was, to the
manner of the telling, and not the matter. It
was so (he may now remark), both in this case,
and in that of the story which preceded it—
also the work of an excellent writer—a noble
French tale, the original of which is known
to a large number of readers, and widely
admired.

With every year of the world's advance the
popularity of the Cattle Show—that Walhalla of
the British agriculturist—seems to become
greater. Every year shows more commotion in
Baker-street. Every year, the crowd increases.
Every year, the annual fillip is administered to
Madame Tussaud, or her heirs, assignees, and
executors, with a more stinging energy; and
with every year the visitor to the Cattle Show is
addressed by a longer row of newspaper
advertisements, and is expected to plunge deeper
into London amusement, and that headlong
dissipation in which, during this frantic week, it is