Bute did not remain in Rome for the final Congregation of the Council on July 18, 1870, when 533 bishops voted in favour of the _schema_ "De Ecclesia," with the added clauses on Papal Infallibility. Two only voted "Non placet," the Bishops of Ajaccio and of Little Rock, U.S.A.[3] The decree was immediately confirmed by the Pope in the midst of a terrific thunderstorm; and on the same day Napoleon III. declared war against Prussia. In a letter to H. D. Grissell, dated five days before the occupation of Rome by the troops of Victor Emmanuel, Bute tells how he first heard of the momentous event: Cardiff Castle, _September_ 15, 1870. How can I tell in what a state this may find you at Rome? the Pope perhaps gone to Malta, and the whole place in revolution, tempered only by the presence of Italian troops. My first act on returning to England was to go to Clifton to see [Bishop] Clifford. He was away, but two of his chaplains received me and told me {91} of the definition, of which I have now received from you the awful description. My mind bowed itself at once before the definition, and I believed the doctrine _ex animo_. I have since found that many most pious Catholics, most heartily willing to believe anything on the Church's authority, do not see that that authority exists in this case. They argue in this way: I. It is admitted that an OEcumenical Council approved by the Pope can bind the soul. II. To be OEcumenical it is necessary for the Council to be _closed_, the decrees signed by a majority of the Fathers, then published and received in the whole world. III. This is not at present the case with the Vatican Council.[4]--_Ergo_. Whether there is anything in all this I am not personally concerned to enquire. There seems to me no doubt that external disobedience and denial of the doctrine are, as things now are, sinful; though some may, and doubtless do, hold a hope that God will some day teach us by His Church that this definition of the Vatican Council is not, after all, part of the revealed truth. Such thoughts sometimes make me unhappy, and I endeavour (which is what our confessors advise) to drown them by practical Catholic work and such attempts at piety as I am capable of. I repeat--from the moment of the definition I had not one doubt of the truth of the doctrine in the bottom of my soul. The conviction that the doctrine is truly part of God's Eternal Truth--even though it may not yet be officially made known to us as part of that "faith" of which St. Paul speaks when he says, "Being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord JESUS Christ"--still remains in me; and it seems to me that I could never cease to hold it until, or unless, the Church laid down the contrary. {92} Let us leave the matter here: I shall write no more of it.