The confirmation of Bishop Knauer's appointment did at last take place; he was to enter Breslau in April 1843. I had gone to that town, partly to attend to my affairs, and partly to seek the means of future subsistence. After the the arrival of Bishop Knauer, I went to a Canon, whose name is appended to my Decree of Deposition, to ascertain at what time I might speak with the Bishop. This right reverend gentleman told me quite naively that I should have answered--"No, I am not the author of the article--bring it home to me!" with this addition, if I "desired to remain at my _clerical trade_." He further informed me, that although _he had not read the article in question_, it was said to contain terrible things. What say the younger clergy to the expression, _clerical trade!_ and what shall one think of the justice and indepedence of a spiritual tribunal, whose members are not even aware of the nature of the crime for which they condemn their fellow-men! Justice! how, indeed, could I expect it at the hands of those who were at once my judges and accusers! I found the Bishop himself, when I preferred my complaint to him, essentially different from the greater number of the Catholic clergy. He received me in that winning manner, with which youth is easily fascinated by age. There was no trace in him of that _quasi_ lowly spiritual pride, and vulgar affectation of pious condescension, so common in prelates. When I had made my request to him in few words, he replied, that the affair was not unknown to him, and that I only needed to apply to Dr. Ritter for a removal of the Suspension, to have the matter satisfactorily arranged. On my objecting, that I was of excitable temper, and that, under existing circumstances, I feared myself incapable of dealing calmly with that individual--he offered to hold a previous conference with Dr. Ritter. He then asked if I were the author of the article. I answered in the affirmative. "But why," continued he, "did you _invite_ all this persecution?"--"Because," I answered, "it was my duty to give utterance to the unanimous feeling of the citizens and the clergy, seeing that no other priest considered himself called upon to do so." He said no more on this subject, but, speaking of the situation as tutor which I had accepted, he said that he needed my assistance in the diocese, and appointed that I should return to him in the afternoon. When I returned to the Bishop, he was embarrassed and reserved, in consequence of the conference with Dr. Ritter, who had inveighed against me in coarse language,* and asserted that I had been invited to appear before him and had not come (a falsehood! for surely condemnation is not invitation!). I proved, indeed, that Dr. Ritter had asserted an untruth; but Bishop Knauer, already eighty years of age, found it very inconvenient to quarrel with his canons, and excused himself by saying, that he had not so fully entered on the duties of his office as to qualify him as a competent judge.