held from them. It only became known in France,
some time later, through a German translation in the Austrian _Gazette_.
Pius IX. was anxious, meantime, that the public should hear both sides of
the question. He therefore brought to the knowledge of the Catholic world
the principal points of his answer to Napoleon in the Encyclical, _nullis
certe verbis_, of date 19th January, in which he declared that he was
prepared to suffer the last extremities rather than betray the cause of
the church and of justice. He also invited all the bishops to join with
him in praying _that God would arise and vindicate his cause_.
The government having information that there was a copy of this document
in the hands of the distinguished Catholic journalist, M. Louis Veuillot,
the Minister of the Interior, M. Billaut, sent for this courageous writer,
and gave him to understand that if he published the Encyclical it would be
the death-warrant of his journal. But M. Veuillot was not to be
intimidated. Next morning, 29th January, there appeared in his paper,
_l'Univers_, the Latin text of the Pontifical document, together with a
French translation. The same day, without trial or sentence, was signed a
decree suppressing _l'Univers_. Yet was not this paper destined wholly to
perish. Ten years later it reappeared, when the tyranny of Napoleon III.
was crushed for ever at Sedan. Several other Catholic journals shared the
fate of _l'Univers_, such as the _Bretagne_, of Saint Brieue, and the
_Gazette_, of Lyons. The government of the Emperor thus showed by what
spirit its counsels were guided. All the Catholic journals of France were
already under the ban of two warnings, so that they had only a precarious
existence, a third warning, according to the legislation of the time
constituting their death-warrant.
So early as 3rd December, 1859, whilst yet a Congress was believed to be
possible, Pius IX. had written with his own hand to Victor Emmanuel, in
order to remind him of his duties, and induce him to defend at the meeting
of the Powers the rights of the Holy See. The latter had answered, 6th
February, 1860, "that he certainly would not have failed in this duty if
the Congress had met." For, "devoted son as he was of the church, and the
descendant of a most pious family, it never was his intention to neglect
his duties as a Catholic Prince." He protested, therefore, that he had
done nothing to provoke the insurrection, and that when the war was en
|