The Socialist party had succeeded in gaining the populace of Rome, and

they now constituted a power which prevailed in the city, whatever it

might have been in the field. Skilfully managed by its leaders, it gave

law to the Pontifical government. The Pope was not, however, powerless. A

merely secular sovereign would have been crushed. He would have had no

other resource than to abdicate. The Holy Father was not reduced to this

extremity. He was still able to repel the unacceptable measures which the

Socialists endeavoured to thrust upon him. They and their myrmidons

vociferated for war with Austria. The Pope could still say there should be

no war, and his people did not engage in the contest. A few among the

Roman youth took the field. But, as effeminate as they were ardent, their

courage cooled at the first sight of a _barbarian_ camp. They returned to

their hearths, and there talked magniloquently of the tented fields which

they had traversed, the savage hordes which they had encountered, and the

dangers they had escaped. The party succeeded, however, in forcing a

ministry on the reluctant Pontiff. Such a thing, when done through the

representative body, however unreasonable, does not so much shock our idea

of constitutional government. Neither can we approve the conduct of a

faction which, whilst it was anything but constitutional, imposed a

minister who held its principles, on the prince who had, of his own

accord, become a constitutional monarch. Count Mamiani was one of those

whom the clemency of Pius IX. had restored to their country, of all the

parties thus favored, he alone refused to become bound in honor to the

Holy Father never to abuse the favor, but to remain always a good and

faithful subject. He was not without ability; was well informed, cool and

resolute, but without any fixed principle in politics. He would as readily

have set up a Red Republic as a constitutional monarchy. His political

conduct was guided more by events and circumstances than by any

well-conceived idea of what is right and fitting. He was one of those

Italian Liberals who might be compared to the Necker of the French

Revolution, whilst Mazzini and his followers were the ultra-radicals—the

Robespierres of Roman politics. The Mamiani ministry necessarily arose out

of the popular commotions, and was a protest of the excited masses against

the Encyclical of 29th April. Its policy was no secret. In the days of

popular turmoil they immediately preceded his nomination. Mamiani had

declared distinctly in his harangues to the people that no priest should

be appointed to any public office; that although Pius IX. should remain at

the head of the government, they ought to obtain from him the revocation

of his Encyclical of 29th April, and a declaration of war against Austria;

that a new expedition should be speedily organized, and that an official

bulletin of the war should be published daily. The warlike and

revolutionary pronunciamentos, thus pompously made, could not fail to

arouse the enthusiasm of the multitude, whose excitement was already so

great. In matters of this nature, however, it is more easy to make fine

speeches than to act. The popular Tribune was no sooner elevated to the

ministry than he came to experience this difficulty. So it was convenient

to forget the grand lessons which he had labored so vehemently to impress

upon the people. He still, however, insisted, or appeared to insist, on

the Austrian war. It may have been necessary for the new minister, in

order to maintain his influence over the masses, to announce a war policy.

Such policy, nevertheless, was chimerical. It was decidedly opposed by the

legitimately-constituted powers of the State—the Sovereign on the one

hand, who, by his name, his character, his virtues, his office, was still

powerful; and on the other, the representative body. Accordingly, when

this body came together in the beginning of June, there was an end to the

government of the streets. But there arose new difficulties, and these

difficulties the government of the Holy Father diligently studied to

overcome. Cardinal Altieri delivered, on the part of the Sovereign

Pontiff, an energetic and moving exhortation in support of unity and

concord.

At the same time, he expressed his earnest hope that the newly-elected

deputies would show their good will by concurring with the ministry in

rendering the new adaptation of the constitution compatible with the

Pontifical government.

This address, however ineffectual, possessed the merit of being thoroughly

constitutional. The same praise cannot be awarded to Count Mamiani’s

inaugural oration. Next day, which was the 9th of June, he ascended the

Tribune, and there enunciated ideas which belonged more to the ministry in

their individual capacity, than as the representatives of their Sovereign.

This was supremely unconstitutional, and could only be the result of

inexperience. What knowledge could those men have had of a free and

national constitution? They ought, at least, to have been guided by the

laws of honesty and honor. Who will say that they were so, when they gave

out that the opinion which they expressed in favor of war was also that of

the Pontiff? They endeavored thus to extend the sanction of a venerated

name to designs that were subversive of Pontifical rule. Neither

inexperience nor ignorance of constitutions presents any valid excuse, or

even palliation of such a proceeding. No doubt they called it policy. It

was the basest trickery.

In the hands of honest and judicious ministers the new constitution might

have proved successful. So thought many persons who were well informed and

competent to form an opinion in regard to so difficult a question. It had

also many well-wishers. But for the war agitation, it would, to all

appearance, have had a different fate. According to the exaggerated idea

of Italian patriotism which prevailed, all true Italians were bound to

fight for their country. On the Mamiani ministry devolved the very arduous

task of reconciling this warlike spirit with the pacific character of the

Pontificate. The Pope, like any other sovereign, had a right, no doubt, to

defend himself. But both the theology which guided him and the traditions

of his sovereignty forbade him to wage war on any people. Such was the

difficulty which it fell to the lot of his ministry to solve. The

arguments to which they had recourse, however well meant, were certainly

very puerile. The Pope, as such, they insisted, might decide for peace,

and condemn the shedding of blood, whilst, as temporal sovereign, he would

authorize his ministers to act as should seem to them proper, and they

would declare for war. This miserable sophistry only showed the weakness

of the government which employed it. The Pontiff could not be expected to

act as if he were two distinct persons. Nor whilst his ministers waged

war, could he, whose representatives they were, be considered as neutral.

For a few months that this ministry remained in office, the Pope continued

to save his States by resisting the war-cry in opposition to their wishes.

They were constantly at variance with him on this one great topic. His

repugnance to war they could neither comprehend nor overcome. Popular

demonstrations of the most threatening kind were often made, but to no

purpose.

Justum et tenacem propositi virum,

Non civium ardor prava jubentum mente quatit solida.

The Pontiff could not be moved from his firm resolve. The ministry,

however, was shaken. With no better stay than sophistry and inconsistency,

its weakness became apparent, and, as had been for some time clearly

inevitable, it fell.

Before considering further the statesman-like efforts of Pius IX. in the

cause of reform, it may not be out of place to review briefly the

political opinion of the time. Although all men cannot be expected to

accept, especially in many important matters, all the ideas of those

distinguished writers, Gioberti, Balbo, D’Azeglio, it would be unjust,

nevertheless, to deny them the credit of having imparted new vigor, if not

its first impulse, to the cause of reform in Italy. They were not, like so

many others, rash and inconsiderate. They desired not to hurry on

recklessly to the wished-for goal. They thought it was unwise to aspire,

all at once, to the greatest degree of liberty that might be attained. The

end in view could be best reached, they conceived, by judicious and

well-timed measures of reform, and by such institutions as might be

developed at a later period, when the Italian people, unaccustomed as yet

to a constitutional _regime_, should be capable of a greater degree of

freedom. Nothing more wise can be supposed than this view of educating the

people for liberty before bestowing on them the precious boon. Their idea

of commencing the work of reform by waging war on Austria does not appear

to be so commendable. It was not, surely, the part of prudence, when on

the eve of a great and arduous undertaking, to stir up enemies on every

side. And this was really what they sought to do by provoking Austrian

hostility. The government at Vienna was not inclined to be hostile. It had

joined with other powers in recommending reform to the late Pope. And now

it would rather have been an ally than an enemy. But the “barbarian”

Germans were entirely odious to the Italian people. The power of education

ought to have been brought to bear on this same people, if only in order

to disabuse their minds of this one noxious prejudice. It had become

necessary at length to extend to them the benefits of a political

education. And surely the eradication of illiberal ideas would have formed

a profitable branch of study.

Pius IX., as has been already shown, was a practical reformer, and he had

zealously undertaken the work of reform. Austria was not inclined to throw

any impediments in the way of his patriotic labors. Only on one occasion

did that powerful empire show a disposition to interfere. It was when Rome

and the Sovereign Pontiff were threatened by popular commotions. Then,

even on the representation of the Holy Father, Austria laid down her arms.

With these constitutional reformers, if we except their insane idea of

waging a needless war, very little fault can be found as politicians. So

lately as the early part of the year 1848, their opinions were generally

accepted throughout Italy. They were, at that time, also the most powerful

party. Their numbers, authority and talent, gave them a decided

superiority, whilst the Republicans were still a weak minority. In a few

months, to all appearance, everything was completely changed. Talent,

respectability, authority, and influence, were still on the side of the

constitutional reformers. But, in the meantime, the Red Republic had

gained the command of numbers. How this came to pass it may be well now to

enquire.

In every great community there are many people who have no fixed

principles in politics, and others, perhaps, not less numerous, who have

no political principles at all. Both these classes of people depend

entirety on other men for the sentiments and opinions by which, at any

given moment, they shall be guided. Such people were sufficiently numerous

at Rome and the other cities and provinces of Italy. Demagogues,

therefore, who were not without ability and possessed fluency of speech,

found it no very difficult task to fashion as they had a mind, for these

classes of citizens, any amount of political principles and _programmes_.

Those even who were fairly imbued with constitutional ideas, but whose

minds were not wholly decided, the leaders of the Red Republic endeavored,

and not without success, to gain to their side, by persuading them to

compromise, as regarded certain points, to modify their opinions on

others, change their designations, enter into coalitions, and adopt such

ingenious arrangements as were proposed to them. Thus, by degrees, and as

was only to be expected in such circumstances, the ultra-radicals

succeeded but too well in causing the most extravagant political notions

to prevail among the masses. As fate would have it, the revolution in

France of February, 1848, which brought to an end the constitutional

monarchy, afforded no slight aid and encouragement to the Red Republic of

Italy. The men of this party might have understood, on reflection, to what

extreme peril France became exposed, when she preferred brute force to

constitutional proceeding, and tore down by violence a system which was,

in many respects, good; and which, inasmuch as it was a constitution,

could in due time have been extended and improved, receiving, as new wants

arose, and wisdom and experience warranted, new developments, new

adaptations, and daily increasing excellence. The constitutional element

once removed, there was no medium between and safeguard against

absolutism; on the one hand, and on the other anarchy, or the reign of

violence and terror.

The extremists of Italy, however, beheld only in the too successful action

of the Parisian populace a new step towards liberty. It became the duty of

the Italian people, they declared, to march onward in the wake of

enlightened France, and seize the prize that was at length presented for

their acceptance. By such counsellors were the people abused and led

astray. The moderate reform party were themselves excited by the

enthusiasm which events had inspired, and heeded not the snares which the

radical chiefs were laying for them. They were thus caught in the toils of

those designing men, whilst they imagined that they were only working out

their own idea. They supposed even that they were gaining Mazzini, whilst,

in reality, Mazzini was making proselytes of them. Gioberti and his more

immediate friends, who certainly were not without their faults, were

abandoned by the crowd.

Reverting to what has been said already concerning Mazzini and his

political doctrines, there need be no hesitation in pronouncing him the

evil genius of modern Italy. In his book, “Italy in its Relations with

Liberty and Moral Civilization,” which was published in France, where he

was an exile, in 1847, he formally declared that “Young Italy” (the

extreme Republicans) was the only party that could exercise any decisive

influence on the destiny of Italy. At the same time, he treated with

supreme contempt the ideas and hopes of the Reform party. In his mystic

republic only was to be found, he affirmed, _the principle of unity, the

ideal formula of actual progress_. This theory was the idol at whose

shrine he offered sacrifice. His followers were also his

fellow-worshippers, and he was their high priest. They were fascinated by

his brilliant utopias. He was no longer a legislator, a politician, a

philosopher only. He was a man of inspiration, a prophet, the Mahomet of a

new hegira. His sayings were oracles. His doctrines were enunciated in

sententious and poetical language; and from his place of exile they were

disseminated over the Italian peninsula. It has been shown already how

generously Pius IX. had recalled from banishment many subjects who had

violated the laws of their country. These men were, at one time, no doubt,

sincerely grateful, and showed how highly they appreciated the clemency of

the Pontiff. It is not, however, surprising, if, as is usual in such

circumstances, they began to consider more the severity which punished

than the goodness which forgave them. Mazzini, among others, dissembled

for a time. It may be—it has even been suggested that he was at first

sincere, and had nobly resolved to sacrifice his favorite ideas to the

cause of Italy. This opinion, however, was destined to be soon dispelled.

It was not long till the newspaper _Italia del Popolo_, revealed the fact

that he still held to extreme and revolutionary views. The minds of the

people were poisoned by the ravings of this journal, and filled with

mistrust. It became the instrument by which sects and parties were stirred

up to work the ruin of the country. “_Unita e non unione. Assemblea del

Popolo Italiano e non dieta._” “_Unity; not union. The assembly of the

Italian people; not a federal diet._” Such was the watchword of Mazzini’s

paper. And now the masses in the streets, under the guidance of the

revolutionary leader, vociferated, “Live the Constituent Assembly!” with

as much wild enthusiasm as they had formerly shouted for Pius IX. and

reform. They had no distinct idea as to the meaning of the cry, but held

it to be something extreme—a boundless measure of liberty. The populace

wanted nothing better; and so they continued to shout, as they believed,

for unity and Republican Government. Such a system was, from the very

nature and position of the States of Italy, impracticable, and without

pressure from without, foreign war—which the Mazzinians so much

deprecated—could never have been established. How bring under the yoke of

a general popular convention so many diverse peoples? They were all

Italian, no doubt, but of different races, different nationalities, and

each of them had for ages enjoyed its own national laws, customs, manners,

prejudices, predilections, and antipathies. Nor had they common interests.

What would be good and suitable in one State might, by no means, be

adapted to the requirements of another; might even in some cases prove

disastrous. The Grand Dukes had, by their mild and liberal rule, endeared

themselves to the Tuscan people. Piedmont and Naples were alike devoted to

their respective monarchies. The people of the Papal States, with the

exception of the populace of Rome, were loyal to their government. That

populace was greatly increased in 1848 by the influx of strangers—men

holding Republican opinions, who were diligently culled from foreign

nationalities. All but these abnormal masses were attached to the wise and

clement rule of their Pontiff Sovereigns. Of late years many things had

occurred to confirm their devoted loyalty. Above all, proof had been given

that the sacred monarchy itself could, without any diminution of its real

power and dignity, adopt such political reforms as were adapted to the

wants of the time. All these monarchies, already so moderate and popular,

were becoming every day more constitutional. Were they now to be

overthrown? The Mazzinian idea aimed at nothing less. And yet, what would

it not have cost? So many time-honored rights would never have been given

up without a struggle—without bloodshed, if they were at all to be

sacrificed. The torch of civil strife would have blazed from end to end of

the Italian peninsula. And the ruin of the ancient monarchies—if, indeed,

they had been destined at that time to fall—would probably have been

succeeded by more despotic forms of kingly rule.

If, at the time in question, the people of the different States of Italy

had acted in concert, uniting their influence, they would have assumed an

imposing attitude, and might have obtained not only the forbearance but

the aid even of their powerful neighbors in developing such of their

institutions as already contained germs of liberty, in extending

constitutional rights which had long existed in monarchies that were by no

means absolute. In the place of political wisdom, however, a universal

mania appeared to prevail. In the confusion of popular demonstrations, and

the clamor of party cries, the “still small voice of reason” was unheard.

The revolutionary chiefs harangued anew for war, and Italy, listening to

their ill-omened counsels, took up arms against its sovereigns; and so

gave the death-blow to its political existence.

The moderate Reform party conceived a plan which, if it had been carried

into effect, would have been attended, no doubt, with great and happy

results. They proposed to unite all the States of Italy by means of a

Federal Parliament. They directed their efforts in the first place to

promote union between the rulers and the people, recommending to the

former moderation, to the latter a wise forbearance. They hoped thus to

postpone the idea of absolute unity, and of the popular convention by

which it was designed to establish and maintain it. The federal diet, an

excellent idea of which was reduced to writing by the reverend and learned

Abbate Rosmini, would have held the place of this assembly. According to

this plan of confederation, the Pope, the King of Sardinia, the Grand Duke

of Tuscany and the other Princes would have been united in an offensive

and defensive league. Based on these principles, and provided that nothing

were admitted in its details which could interfere with the sacred

character and office of the Sovereign Pontiff, the proposed political

arrangement would have found favor generally with all who held

constitutional views. Eminent authors, at least, have written concerning

it approvingly. M. Laboulaye, in his learned work on Count Balbo, says:

“It was necessary that the Princes should be induced to take an

interest in the independence which concerned them so much, by

forming a confederation like the _Zolverein_, which has so

powerfully contributed to the union and the greatness of Germany.

A confederation is undoubtedly that organization which is most

suited to the character and the history of Italy, and it is also

the best means of reviving Italian nationality and of checking

Austria.”

Need it be added, that when there should have been question of restraining

Austria, there would have been at hand an influence which Austria

respected, and to which that mighty empire and its disciplined armies

would have yielded more readily than to all Italy in arms. Without a

confederation, or an arrangement equally good, there could be no better

lot for Italy than civil war and national ruin.

Events, meanwhile, were hastening on with alarming rapidity. The Red

Republic persisted in maintaining its idea. The danger with which the

country was threatened from without did not, in the least, moderate its

efforts, and they were attended by the only results which they were

calculated to produce. Italy remained divided. The sword of Charles Albert

could not cope alone with the formidable arms of Austria. A united people

might have stayed the tide of battle. The imposing spectacle of their

union might even have influenced the German Cabinet, and the legions of

Radetsky might never have presumed to cross the Mincio. But it was fated

to be otherwise. Excess followed on excess, and the inevitable consequence

was speedy chastisement. “_Perish Italy rather than our idea_,” was the

watch-cry of the Socialist leaders. And as if fate had combined with their

phrenzy to destroy a people, Italy was crushed by the invader. What cared

they? What imported it to them that their country was brought low, and its

Princes humbled in the field of Novara? The downfall of the Sardinian

monarch, which at the same time was the defeat of Italy, was to them a

victory. One more impediment to their designs was removed. “_The war of

Kings_,” said Mazzini, “_is at an end; that of the people commences_.” And

he declared himself a soldier. But Garibaldi did not long command him. His

warlike enthusiasm was soon exhausted. _The war of the people_ also ended

disastrously; and the revolutionary chief, tired of the sword, resumed his

pen and renewed his attacks on the moderate Reformers, who alone had

fought, like brave men, in the Austrian war. The strife of words was more

congenial to the revolutionist; and he set about editing a new

publication. In this journal he raged against the Reformers. They were a

set of traitors, ante-chamber Machiavels, who had muzzled the popular lion

for the benefit of kings and aristocracies.

These _Machiavels_ were such men as Count Balbo, who had given his five

sons to the war of independence; Signor D’Azeglio, who had been in the

campaign with Durando, and who had a leg broken by a ball at Vicenza,

whilst defending Monte Benico with two thousand men against twelve

thousand Austrians. D’Azeglio, still smarting from his wounds, as well as

from the insults of these reckless politicians, replied in a pamphlet,

which appeared under the title of “Fears and Hopes.” He took no pains to

spare those club soldiers, those tavern heroes and intriguers, who could

wage war so cleverly against the men who had stood under the enemy’s guns.

“For my part,” he wrote, “I do not fear your republic, but despotism. Your

agitation will end with the Croats.” And so it fell out. The prediction

was but too speedily and too completely realized. A French author, M.

Mignet, comments on this subject at some length, and with remarkable

eloquence:

“A party as extreme in its desires as in its doctrines, and which

believes that it is possessed of nothing so long as it does not

possess everything, and which, when it has everything, knows not

how to make anything of it, imagined the establishing of a

republic in a country which is scarcely capable of attaining to

representative monarchy, and where the only thing to be thought

of, as yet, was territorial independence. This party divided the

thoughts, weakened the efforts of the country, and caused mutual

mistrust to arise between those governments and peoples which were

reconciled under constitutional liberty, and had an understanding

against the common enemy. They thus compromised the deliverance of

the land. The King of Naples, threatened by an insurrection in his

capital, retained his troops that were on the point of marching to

the theatre of war; the Pope ceased to give encouragement; the

King of Piedmont, already in full march, hesitated; and Italy,

agitated, without being free, became once more powerless, because

she was disunited, and beheld the Austrians reappear as

conquerors, and re-establish themselves anew as masters, in the

recovered plains of Lombardy.”

These eloquent words confirm the view so generally entertained, that the

Red Republicans were all along the cause of Italy’s disasters. In

consequence of the national weakness which their baneful operations

produced, Radetski was enabled to reconquer Upper Italy, whilst they

themselves directed their steps towards Rome, spreading terror as they

approached, even as if they had been an army of Goths and Vandals.

Swelling by their presence the numbers of men who held the same opinions,

who, like them, were dissatisfied, and whom nothing could satisfy, they

occasioned an extraordinary agitation of the people, caused fearful

disquietude, and excited inordinate hopes. They imbued the masses with

their subversive principles, and there was an end to all transaction with

the Papal government. They had already done all that lay in their power in

order to destroy monarchy in Piedmont. They now brought into play every

scheme that could be devised, in order to advance the sinister work of

dispossessing the Holy Father. They succeeded in gaining many Reformers,

who, too easily, allowed themselves to become their dupes.

At first, as has been shown, the popular demonstrations in honor of Pius

IX. were honestly expressive of gratitude to the beneficent Pontiff. The

Socialists now succeeded in gaining possession of this great influence,

and they employed it, certainly, with consummate ability. The masses, when

once under the spell of agitation, are at the disposal of the boldest

demagogues. The Reformers who had allowed themselves to be ensnared,

continued to sing their patriotic hymns, the Roman _Marseillaises_,

without heeding that Socialist radicalism was imperceptibly taking the

crown of the causeway, and that the popular demonstrations had undergone a

complete change. At an earlier date “Young Italy” had only used them as a

threat. They were now an arm in its hands. And so it governed in the

streets, making a tribune of every milestone.

There was only wanting to them at this moment a common centre or general

headquarters of insurrection, from which should go forth the word of

command, the signal for every rising of the people. This was found in the

celebrated _Roman Circle_. This circle was a kind of convention without

commission—a travelling cohort of two or three hundred agitators, who

carried from town to town the dread and dismal flag of the Red Republic.

This mob-power had, in opposition to the wishes of the Holy Father,

brought into office the Mamiani ministry. This weak and irresolute

minister broke the ranks of his own party, and passed over to “_Young

Italy_”. This party now dictated to him on all occasions. They urged on

him with special earnestness war with Austria, knowing full well that the

Pope would never agree to it, and so by his refusal would decline in

popularity.

The constitution was now in abeyance, the minister being at the orders of

a party out of doors, and no longer the organ of the Sovereign and the

representative body. The Pontifical authority, although still venerated by

many, was no longer obeyed. It was only a name.

The republic reigned, and only waited for the moment, too surely to come

at last, when it should be openly recognized. In such circumstances the

Mamiani ministry rapidly lost ground. Now in its death agony, and impotent

for good, it persisted, with a degree of perverseness which nothing could

moderate, in reiterating its declarations of war against Austria. This

only added to the confusion which prevailed. The ministers and their more

ardent adherents were ready, as became patriots and heroes, to fight for

their country. Nevertheless, with all this boasting, they made no haste to

be enrolled. Whilst these men were indulging in such idle and

vain-glorious talk, the few who had volunteered and taken the field,

returned from Vicenza, which, during two days, had been bravely but

fruitlessly defended. The forum warriors had only set out in time to meet

their defeated and wounded fellow-countrymen, and give them the honors of

an ovation on their return to the city. The war agitation was evidently

nothing else than a weapon of offence against the Holy See. In its results

it was most unprofitable, every day bringing news of fresh disasters.

Circumstances now rendered the war-cry more inopportune than ever. Charles

Albert, King of Sardinia, had been driven from the Mincio to the Oglio,

thence to the Adda, thence to Milan. He was now recrossing the Piedmontese

frontier, vanquished, despairing and heart-broken. Piedmont, nevertheless,

in the silence of her humiliation, set about preparing for a final effort.

The various ministers whom Pius IX. had called to his counsels were all

alike unsuccessful. Circumstances of greater difficulty than ever had now

arisen, and not without a sad foreboding of the greater evils that were

yet in store, the Holy Father had recourse to the well-known statesmanship

of Count Rossi, who had formerly been French Ambassador to the Holy See.

M. Mignet, the able biographer of this eminent statesman, gives a distinct

and interesting account of the difficulties with which, as Chief of the

Pope’s Council of State, he was called to contend:

“M. Rossi at first hesitated. He knew what formidable problems

there were to solve. To conduct, according to constitutional

principles, a government that had been heretofore absolute; to

administer by the hands of laymen the affairs of a country that

had been hitherto subject to Ecclesiastics; to unite in an Italian

league a state that had been almost always opposed to a political

union of the Peninsula; in a word, to establish all at the same

time, a Constitutional Government, a Civil Administration, a

National Federation, were not the only difficulties that he would

have to overcome. The minister of a Prince, whose confidence

others would dispute with him, a stranger in a country, where he

would exercise public authority, he would be liable to be left

without support notwithstanding his devotedness, and without

approbation notwithstanding his services; to be attacked as a

revolutionist by the blind advocates of abuses, and disavowed as

an enemy of liberty by the impassioned partisans of chimeras. He

continued to decline for a considerable time. The conditions which

he at first proposed to the Sovereign Pontiff not having been

accepted, M. Rossi thought that he had escaped the lot that was in

store for him. But the Pope, after having essayed in vain a new

ministry, pressed him more urgently, in the month of September,

1848, to come to his aid, offering him at the same time his full

confidence and unlimited authority. M. Rossi accepted.”

At the time of his accession to office Count Rossi was sixty years of age.

He was no stranger to politics. His life, indeed, had been spent in the

midst of political turmoil. As may be supposed, he suffered much in the

course of his checkered career. He had, at the same time, learned much at

the stern school of experience. He had been several times an exile, and

had thus become the citizen of more than one country. In 1815 he was

banished from the Peninsula, on account of the part which he had borne in

the cause of Italian liberty; and having resided at Geneva and Paris, he

had made for himself, in those cities, a brilliant reputation. He wrote on

the important subjects of political economy and jurisprudence, displaying

intimate knowledge of these sciences, great intellectual power and

superior penetration. Although relying on principles and theory, he did

not ignore facts, nor refuse to accommodate the lofty forms of science to

practical requirements. He was versed in the knowledge of mankind, and was

far from being one of those, who, adhering rigidly to theories, would

force nature itself to yield to their opinion. At a time when the affairs

of Italy were in a most dangerous crisis, and anarchy actually prevailed

at Rome, he was the ablest counsellor and auxiliary that Pius IX. could

have placed at the head of his ministry. Possessing many rare endowments,

Count Rossi was not gifted with those outward graces which tend so much to

win favor for public men. His manner was such that he appeared cold and

reserved; and his keen, searching lynx-like eye, was calculated to cause

embarrassment. Familiarity with the objects of science and habits of

diplomacy had imparted to him a gravity of demeanor which was easily

mistaken for superciliousness and disdain. Withal he cared not to please,

preferring to exercise influence by strength of will and the authority of

superior intellect, rather than by attractive and amiable qualities and

the charm of the affections. He had the mind of a statesman, but owned not

that winning exterior which gains the crowd and disarms hostility. None

but his own family knew how good he really was, and how tender-minded, so

completely was all this excellence concealed by his cold and repulsive

manner.

The new minister was resolved, above all, to preserve the sovereignty of

the Holy See. “The Papacy,” he wrote at the time, “is the last living

glory of Italy.” His conduct was in perfect harmony with his language. He

applied with no less ardour than ability to the work that lay before him.

In less than two months he accomplished more than can be well conceived,

and further measures were in course of preparation. Those matters to which

he first devoted his chief attention were the Interior Government of Rome,

the state of the Pontifical finances and the territorial independence of

Italy. He found the public treasury in imminent danger of bankruptcy, and

he saved it by obtaining three millions of _ecus_ from the Roman clergy.

Through this munificent donation the minister was relieved from all

disquietude as regarded finance, and so was enabled to direct his energies

to the more difficult task of adapting the administration to the new

institutions. The constitution was, indeed, legally established. The

object now to be aimed at was to bring its wise provisions into practical

operation; in other words, to create a constitutional Pontificate.

With a view to this desirable end, M. Rossi prepared such legislative

measures as were calculated nicely to determine the sphere of action that

should be proper to each of the powers. By such means only could the

disorderly force of popular movements be controlled and restrained within

fixed limits. The Civil Government of the Roman States required to be

entirely reorganized. To this task also the minister diligently applied,

impressed with the conviction that good laws are at once the strongest

bulwark of liberty, and the most efficient check to arbitrary power. Count

Rossi was by birth an Italian. He was so in feeling also, and was

naturally led to consider how he should best avail himself in his

political arrangements, of the sound and enlightened doctrines of Gioberti

and Rosmini. With a view to this end he commenced negotiations at Turin,

Naples and Florence, for a confederation of the Italian States. It was his

policy that all these States should unite under a general government,

whilst each State retained the forms, laws and institutions to which it

had been accustomed. Certain relations between them, suitable to the time

of peace, should be established, as well as such regulations as would

facilitate their common action in case of war. Pius IX. saw the wisdom of

this great design, and favored its realization. It redounds to his glory,

as a ruler of mankind, that he decided for this salutary measure from

which, if it had been carried into effect, might have resulted, in time,

the complete emancipation and regeneration of Italy. Time, however, was

not granted, and as we shall presently see, anarchy resumed its dismal

reign.

Anterior to the accession of Count Rossi’s Ministry, the Legislative

Chambers had only wasted their time in unprofitable debates. It was

appointed that they should meet on the 15th of December, 1848, and the

minister prepared a bold and energetic, but conciliatory address. The

representatives of the people, it was designed, should now hear no longer

the ambiguous and factious harangues of a weak-minded demagogue, but the

true and candid utterances of a Constitutional Government. Rossi showed

himself on this occasion, to which melancholy circumstances have added

extraordinary solemnity, a grave and resolute minister, determined to

appear as the counsellor of his Sovereign and the exponent of his views,

not as the slave of the people and the organ of their blind passions. This

discourse was not destined to be delivered. It commenced as follows:

“Scarcely had his Holiness ascended the Pontifical throne when the

Catholic world was filled with admiration at his clemency as a

Pontiff and his wisdom as a temporal Sovereign.... The most

important facts have shown to mankind the fallacy of the

groundless predictions of that pretended philosophy which had

declared the Papacy to be, from the nature of its constitutive

principle, the enemy of constitutional liberty. In the course of a

few months, the Holy Father, of his own accord, and without aid,

accomplished a work which would have sufficed for the glory of a

long reign. History, impartially sincere, will repeat—and not

without good reason—as it records the acts of this Pontificate,

that the Church, immovable on her Divine foundations, and

inflexible in the sanctity of her dogmas, always intelligently

considers and encourages with admirable prudence, such changes as

are suitable in the things of the world.”

The oration was, throughout, a bold and luminous exposition of the ideas

and policy which M. Rossi was charged to carry into effect. It was, at the

same time, an earnest appeal to the representative body in order to obtain

the aid, which was so necessary, of their loyal concurrence, and the

minister held himself bound in honor to abide strictly by the provisions

of the constitution. The constitution, meanwhile, was in presence of very

determined enemies. They had sworn its overthrow. They met, however, with

a formidable opponent in the ministry, which was resolved to sustain the

new order of things, and prepared to defeat all the schemes of the radical

faction. The constitution itself was also a serious impediment to their

contrivances. Both constitution and ministry accordingly became the

objects of violent attacks at street meetings and in the revolutionary

journals. The minister was undaunted. “To reach the Holy Father,” said he,

“they must pass by my lifeless body.” This noble determination only

rendered him more odious to the revolutionists. The leaders of the Red

Republic party, on their return from a scientific Congress at Turin, where

the name of science was only used as a cloak the better to conceal their

plots, decreed that Rossi should be put to death. Mazzini, in a letter

which was published, declared that his assassination was indispensable. In

one of the clubs of Rome the Socialists selected by lot the assassins who

should bear a hand in the murder of the minister. The wretched man who was

appointed to be the principal actor in the deed of blood actually

practised on a dead body in one of the hospitals. The day on which

Parliament was summoned to meet, 15th November, was to see the full

purpose of the faction carried into effect. As almost always occurs in

such cases, warnings reached the ears of the intended victim. Some of the

conspirators, struck with remorse, had so far revealed the plot. Others

boasted cynically that they would soon be rid of the oppressor. The

Duchess de Rignano conjured the minister to remain at home. Equally solemn

and urgent words of warning came from other quarters, and were alike

unheeded. If, indeed, he believed that there was a plot, he relied on

disarming the hatred of the conspirators by his courageous bearing, and

proceeded from his house to the Quirinal Palace. When there he addressed

comforting words to the Pope, who was in a a state of great anxiety. Pius

IX., in bestowing a parting benediction, earnestly recommended that he

should keep on his guard.

At the door of the Pope’s apartments he met an aged priest, who beseeched

him to remain. “If you proceed,” said he, “you will be murdered.” M. Rossi

paused a moment and replied: “The cause of the Pope is the cause of God.”

A guard of carabiniers, treacherously disobeying the orders which had been

given them, were absent from the approach to the house where parliament

assembled. The minister had reached the stairs, and was ascending when a

group of conspirators came around him. At first they insulted him. Then

one of the assassins struck him on the shoulder. As he turned indignantly

towards this assassin, his neck was exposed to the poniard of another,

who, availing himself of the opportune moment, dealt the fatal blow. The

minister fell, bedewing with his blood the steps at the very threshold of

the legislative chamber. As the details of the murder were related to the

members, they remained ominously silent. Not one of them uttered a word in

condemnation of this monstrous crime. They proceeded at once to the

business of the day. Although in the open space at the foot of the stairs

which led to the assembly hall the civic guard was stationed in arms,

nobody arrested, or showed the slightest inclination to arrest, the

murderer. On the contrary, the criminal was conducted, not only unpunished

but in triumph, through the streets of the city by his accomplices. A new

hymn was sung—“Blessed be the hand that slew Rossi.” The dagger of the

assassin was enwreathed with flowers and exposed for public veneration in

the _cafe_ of the Fine Arts. The populace, in the excess of their phrenzy,

insulted the widow of the murdered minister; and, by an extravagance of

irony, they required that she should illuminate her house. The newspapers

expressed approval of the crime, as it was, they pretended, the necessary

manifestation of the general sentiment. The whole people, by their

silence, although not by actual participation in such demon-like

rejoicings, declared themselves accomplices in the deed of blood.

Together with the noble Rossi perished, for the time, the cause of Rome,

the cause of Italy. What might not have been the gain to both, if the

devoted minister had been allowed to fulfil his appointed mission?

Constitutional government would have been established on a solid and

permanent basis; the wild agitation of the streets would have been brought

to an end, and the excited passions of the revolution, beholding the

sound, regular and beneficial working of free political institutions,

would have been awed into composure. But, sad reflection! by an act which

history will never cease to stigmatize, the only man who, by the authority

of his reputation, abilities and experience, was equal to the stupendous

labor of building up on sure foundations the social fabric was struck

down, and the nations of Europe, which had looked on hitherto in sympathy,

recoiled with horror. Liberal men throughout the civilized world had long

been deeply interested in the state of Italy. Such was their belief in the

bright future, which they were confident awaited her, that they could

pardon the ill-controlled agitation of her children, and even their

greatest excesses, when they first began to enjoy, before they knew how to

use it, the unwonted boon of liberty. With crime and the evils which

followed in its train they had no sympathy. A system which relied on

assassination could not prosper. Inaugurated by violence, it could exist

only by violence. The better feelings of mankind were shocked. The die was

cast, and Rome was doomed. The fated city had rejoiced in the exercise of

unhallowed force, and through that legitimate force which, in due time,

Divine Providence allowed to be brought against her, she met her

punishment.

With the death of Rossi ended all hope of liberty.

The conspirators were resolved that nothing should be allowed to delay the

benefits which they anticipated from their crime. All sense of propriety

was not yet extinguished in the representative body. There was question of

sending a deputation to the Pope, in order to convey to him the condolence

of the Chamber, and express their regret for the sad event. This step,

which good sense and proper feeling so urgently demanded, was opposed, and

only too successfully, by Charles Bonaparte, Prince of Canino.

(M1) The revolutionists now resolved themselves into a kind of permanent

club. This club set about making a great demonstration, and required that

both the civic guard and the army should join them. When all was ready for

this purpose, a mob which had for some time been in course of organization

marched to the Quirinal Palace, where the Pope resided, and pointed cannon

against the gates. They also caused muskets to be discharged from the

neighboring houses. Monsignore Palma fell, mortally wounded, and

expired(1) at the feet of the Holy Father. They next set fire to one of

the gates. But the Swiss Guards succeeded in extinguishing the flames. The

rebels now threatened to put to death all the inmates of the palace, with

the exception of Pius IX. himself, unless he consented to their

unreasonable demands. Even he would not have been spared, as was but too

well shown by the balls which fell in his apartments. Until this moment

the Holy Father had resolutely refused to accept a ministry, to press

which upon him was an insult. Now, but only in order to save the lives of

the people around him, he submitted to this indignity. Mamiani, with his

former programme, supported by the constituent assembly, which consisted

of the representatives of all Italy, together with Dr. Sterbini, Garetti,

and four other persons equally unacceptable, constituted this Socialist

ministry.

They desired also to include in the sinister list the celebrated Abbate

Rosmini. But this gifted and eminent divine refused to take part with

them, or lend any countenance to their proceedings. On the 17th November

several members of the representative chamber proposed that a deputation

should be sent to Pius IX., in order to express to him their devotedness

and gratitude. They were not wholly lost to all sense of propriety. But

the Prince de Canino, true to his antecedents, succeeded in preventing so

laudable a purpose from being carried into effect. He declared that such a

step would be imprudent, and that they might have cause to repent it.

“Citizen Bonaparte,” such was the appellation he gloried in, further said

that the Italian people were undeniably the masters now, and that they

well understood how to humble all parliaments, ministers and thrones that

should oppose their energetic impulses.

(M2) Meanwhile the Pope, in such a fearful crisis, was abandoned by all

save a few friends, the officials of his Palace, his faithful Swiss Guards

and the foreign ambassadors. Among those who remained with him were six

Noble Guards, and the Cardinals Soglia and Antonelli. This was all the

court and army that was left to the great Pontiff, who had been so

deservedly the idol of his people and the hope of mankind. In so desperate

a condition he never lost confidence. Throughout all the trying

circumstances he was self-possessed and serene. Nothing pained him so much

as the ingratitude of his people. The new ministry of subversion had

extorted from the Pope his forced and reluctant consent to their

formation. He deemed it his duty to protest, which he did in the most

solemn manner, against them and all their acts, before all the Christian

European nations, as represented by their ambassadors.

These ambassadors and diplomatists were Martizez Della Rosa, the

ambassador of Spain, with the Secretary of the Embassy, M. Arnao; the Duke

d’Harcourt, ambassador of France; the Count de Spaur, ambassador of

Bavaria; the Baron Venda Cruz, ambassador of Portugal, with the Commandant

Huston; the Count Boutenieff, who represented at that time the Emperor of

Russia and King of Poland; Figuereido, ambassador of Brazil; Liedekerke of

Holland, and several other diplomatists, of whom not one was an Italian.

There was at Rome also on the occasion, although not in the apartments of

the Pope, a British statesman, who was not an ambassador, inasmuch as,

whatever may have been his business at Rome, he had no recognized mission,

if any mission at all, to the Sovereign of Rome. He was rather officious

than official, and whether he had commission or not, he held, as is well

known, serious communications with the enemies of the Pope. Lord Minto was

enthusiastically received by the secret societies of Rome. The people,

forgetting at the time the way to the Quirinal, went to serenade him. Lord

Minto frequented “the popular circle” (a band of three hundred chosen

agitators, whose office it was to carry the torch of discord into all the

cities of the Papal States and of Italy) and the offices of the Socialist

newspaper. He went so far as to receive courteously Cicervacchio, and made

verses for his son Cicervacchietto.

The Earl of Minto was not, however, a faithful exponent of the opinions of

British statesmen. Few of them, fortunately, held the subversive doctrines

that were countenanced by his lordship when representing at Rome the least

respectable portion of the Whig party.

The multitude, intoxicated with their delusive success, and the desperate

men who led them, were still celebrating their ill-gained victory, the

frequent discharge of fire-arms and the impassioned vociferations of the

crowd were yet reverberating through the venerable edifices of Rome, when

the Holy Father addressed the following words, giving proof of the deepest

emotion whilst he spoke, to the ambassadors who remained with him:

“Gentlemen, I am a prisoner here. Now that I am deprived of all support

and of all power, my whole conduct will have only one aim—to prevent any,

even one drop of fraternal blood from being uselessly shed in my cause. I

yield everything to this principle; but at the same time I am anxious that

you, gentlemen, should know, that all Europe should be made aware, that I

take no part, even nominally, in this government, and that I am resolved

to remain an absolute stranger to it. I have forbidden them to abuse my

name; I have ordered that recourse should not be had even to the ordinary

formulas.”

The representatives of the European Powers received respectfully, and with

feelings which found expression in tears, the protestation of Pius IX.,

who was now a prisoner in his own mansion, and a hostage of the

revolutionary faction.

Pius IX. was in imminent danger. A prisoner, and surrounded by implacable

enemies, he had no power to protect his own life or that of any faithful

citizens. Many who were devoted to his cause had been obliged to leave the

city. The Cardinals, indeed, were all true to their illustrious Chief. But

several were driven by threats of assassination to go into exile. The

children of Saint Ignatius withdrew, at the request of the Holy Father, in

order to escape the wrath of the excited multitude. The Pope himself knew

not whither to direct his steps.

(M3) The revolution was everywhere. It had not yet conquered, but it

disturbed all Europe. The representatives of the Powers remained devotedly

with the Pope. But the countries which would have sustained them were

distracted by political commotions. The King of Naples was threatened on

all hands by revolution. Lombardy and Venice were in a state of

insurrection. Piedmont was making war on Austria, and all Hungary was in

rebellion. The Emperor Ferdinand was compelled twice over by civil

commotion to abandon his capital. Unable to face the revolutionary tide,

he handed over his tottering throne to a youth of eighteen years. The King

of Prussia and other German Sovereigns, who hoped at first to direct the

revolutionary movement as to derive from it new strength, were obliged

either to fly before it or to struggle against it in the streets. France,

who commenced the disturbance which was now so general, was compelled to

fight for her existence against her own children. Her chief city, Paris,

had become a battle-field, where wicked men and equally wicked women slew

the soldiers of the country with poisoned balls. A greater number of the

best officers of France fell in a single fight against Parisian anarchy

than during the whole time of the war with the wild Bedouins of Africa.

(M4) At Rome the revolutionary faction was gaining strength, and the

position of the Pope was becoming every day more perilous. It was the

opinion of his most devoted friends that he should leave the city. But to

what country should he repair? All Europe was agitated by revolutionary

troubles. The Holy Father was still undecided, when he received from the

Bishop of Valence a letter of wise counsel, together with a precious

gift—the Pyx which the venerable Pius VI. had borne on his person when an

exile and the captive of an earlier revolution. Pius IX., on receiving a

present which was so suggestive, resolved to remain no longer in the power

of his enemies. With the assistance of the Duke d’Harcourt, ambassador of

France, and the Bavarian Ambassador, Count de Spaur, he left the Quirinal

Palace and the city of Rome. He was safely conducted by the latter

personage to Albano, and thence in this ambassador’s carriage to Gaeta, in

the kingdom of Naples. As soon as his arrival there was intimated to King

Ferdinand, who was not yet deprived of his royal power, this monarch,

attended by a brilliant suite, embarked for Gaeta, in order to welcome the

Holy Father and assure him of protection. During seventeen months that

Pius IX. resided as a voluntary exile in the kingdom of Naples, Ferdinand

ceased not to afford all the comfort in his power to the Sovereign

Pontiff. His conduct towards him in every respect was beyond all praise.

As a fellow-man, he consoled him in his sorrows; as a prince, he

entertained him with truly royal magnificence, sparing nothing that was

calculated to lessen, even to do away with the pain and tedium of exile,

whilst, as a faithful Christian, he fulfilled every filial duty towards

the Vicar of Christ, expiating, as far as was possible, the crimes

committed against him by so many ruthless enemies.

(M5) The revolution of another country had for chiefs such men as

Robespierre. That of Rome and Italy gloried in Mazzini, who ordered the

assassination of Count Rossi. There was at Rome another revolutionary

leader, the Advocate Armellini, who pronounced the downfall of the Pope

from his temporal sovereignty. This consistorial advocate had, six times

over, solemnly sworn fidelity to the Pontiff. He had even composed in

honor of the Papacy a sonnet, in which are read these remarkable words: “I

spoke with Time, and asked it what had become of so many empires, of those

kingdoms of Argos and Thebes and Sidon, and so many others which had

preceded or followed them. For only answer, Time strewed its passage with

shreds of purple and kingly mantles, fragments of armor, wrecks of crowns,

and cast at my feet thousands of broken sceptres. I then enquired what

would become of the thrones of to-day. What the first became, was the

reply—and Time waved the direful scythe which levels all things under its

merciless strokes—these also will be. I asked if a like destiny was in

store for the Throne of Peter. Time was silent; Eternity alone could

reply.”

Not long after the departure of the Holy Father, this traitor, Armellini,

gave a banquet to the principal chiefs of the revolution. His wife, who

had often charged him with the violation of his oath, remained on this

occasion in her apartment, lest she should be contaminated by any, even an

apparent association with, such men as Sterbini, Mamiani, Galetti and

others.

The guests enquired the cause of her absence, when suddenly the door

opened, and Madam Armellini, pale, animated, in a threatening attitude,

and with a roll of paper in her hand, exclaimed: “You are all accursed!

Fear the judgments of God, you, who in contempt of your oaths, although

unable to slay, have banished his minister. Dread the Divine anger. Pius

IX., from his place of exile, appeals to God against you. Listen to his

words.” She unrolled slowly, as she spoke, the paper which she held in her

hand, and read in a firm voice, emphasising every word, the decree of the

Holy Father, which contained a threat of excommunication. This reading

came like a lightning stroke on the startled guests. Madam Armellini,

after a moment’s silence, resumed: “Sirs, have you understood? The

avenging hand which none can escape is suspended over your heads, ready to

strike. But there is still time. The voice of God has not yet, through

that of his Vicar, fulminated the terrible sentence. For the sake of your

happiness in this world and your salvation in the next, throw yourselves

on his mercy. The cup of your iniquities is filling fast. Dash it from you

before it overflow.” Having thus spoken, this courageous woman, whose just

indignation was at its height, approached her husband and threw down

before him, on the table, the decree of the Holy Father. She then

withdrew.

(M6) About two months and a half after the assassination of the Pope’s

minister, Count Rossi, the leading conspirators caused it to be decreed,

in their revolutionary assembly, that the Papacy was fallen, _de facto et

de jure_, from the government of the Roman States. They made a fashion of

providing, at the same time, that the Pontiff should have all necessary

guarantees for his independence in the exercise of his spiritual office.

Above all, they forgot not to declare that the form of government should

be purely democratic, and assume the glorious name of _Roman Republic_.

All this was very little in harmony with the sentiments which were

expressed at the commencement of the popular movements. With regard to

these sentiments, which were so loudly and apparently also so sincerely

proclaimed, new light was dispensed. Mazzini arrived at Rome as a deputy

to the Revolutionary Convention. He had no sooner taken his place there

than he declared that the reiterated _vivats_ in honor of the reforming

Pope were lies, and were had recourse to in order to conceal designs which

it was not yet time to reveal. Is there not reason to believe that the new

watchword, “Live the Roman people!” was equally sincere? It is well known

that they never would admit a fair representation of the people. And had

they not declared that they are incapable of governing themselves, and

must be ruled with a rod of iron?

(M7) Public opinion at the same time gave the lie to their unwarrantable

pretensions. The revolutionary chiefs gave out in an official

proclamation, “that a republic had arisen at Rome on the ruins of the

Papal Throne, which the unanimous voice of Europe, the malediction of all

civilized people and the spirit of the Gospel, had levelled in the dust.”

Not only the nations of Europe, but also the whole civilized world and

people, the most remote, who scarcely yet enjoyed the blessings of

civilization, made haste to deny an assertion which was as false as it was

audacious. All the nations of Christendom were deeply moved when they

heard of the outrages which the Roman populace had heaped upon the common

Father of the faithful. Compassion was universally expressed, together

with professions of duty and obedience, whilst there was only indignation

at the base conduct of the faction which persecuted him. There was

scarcely a Sovereign Prince in Europe who did not send to Pius IX. most

affectionate letters, expressive of reverence and devotedness, whilst they

promised assistance and defence. The four Catholic Powers, and not without

the consent of the other States, united in order to drive the rebels from

Rome and the Roman States, and restore to the Pontiff his temporality. In

the representative assemblies of France and Spain, the most eloquent

orators upheld the rights of the Holy See, the utility and necessity of

the complete independence of the Roman Pontiff, both for the government of

his States and the exercise of his spiritual power. At the same time

numerous associations were formed under the auspices of the civil and

ecclesiastical authorities, for the purpose of collecting offerings in aid

of the Sovereign Pontiff, impoverished as he was by the privation of his

revenues. These associations extended not only throughout Europe, but were

established also in North and South America, India, China and the

Philippine Islands. The poorest even, like the widow of the Gospel,

insisted on contributing their mite.

Many touching instances are quoted. Some young persons, who were only

humble artisans, managed by great economy to save some thirty-five livres,

and sent them, accompanied with a very feeling address, to the association

of their locality. “If, at this moment,” they said, “we were near the Holy

Father, we would say to him, whilst reverently kneeling at his feet: Most

Holy Father, this is the happiest of our days. We are a society of young

persons who consider it our greatest happiness to give proof of our

veneration for your Holiness. We claim to be your most affectionate

children; and notwithstanding the efforts of ill-disposed persons to

separate us from Catholic unity, we declare that we recognize in your

Holiness the successor of St. Peter and the Vicar of Jesus Christ. We are

prepared to sacrifice all that we possess, and even our life, in order to

prove ourselves worthy children of so good a Father.” The testimony of

youth and innocence is precious in the sight of heaven. Hence, allusion is

made to this case in preference to so many others. _Ex ore infantium et

lactantium perfecisti laudem._ On occasion of receiving such genuine marks

of filial devotedness Pius IX. was often moved to tears.

The revival of the offering of “Peter’s Pence” recalls to mind the piety

of the early ages. This practice was in vigor when the world had scarcely

yet begun to believe. It is not a little remarkable that it has been

renewed in an age when so many have fallen from belief. The more the

Church was persecuted in the early days the more were her ministers held

in honor. Such, one is compelled to say, is her destiny in all ages. Pius

IX., when an exile at Gaeta, was the object of the most respectful and

devoted attentions of all classes of Christians in every land. Bishops,

ecclesiastical communities, religious congregations, all orders of

Christian people, vied with one another in their zeal to do him honor. As

many as six, eight, eleven thousand signatures were often appended to the

same dutiful address. The memory of such faith and devotedness can never

perish. A selection of letters and addresses to the Holy Father was

published at Naples in two large quarto volumes, under the title: _The

Catholic world to Pius IX., Sovereign Pontiff, an exile at Gaeta from 1848

to 1850_.

(M8) When Peter himself was in prison the whole Church was moved, and

prayed for his release. It speedily followed. Prayer, no less earnest, was

made in behalf of his successor. With what success a few words will show.

The deliverers were the Princes and people of Catholic Europe. If there

was still some delay it was only that for which diplomacy is proverbial.

Austria, that had more than once obeyed the voice of the Holy Father, in

withdrawing her troops from the Roman States, and against which he had so

often refused to allow war to be declared, was the first now to propose

that measures should be adopted for his restoration. In a note addressed

by this State to the other Powers we find the following words: “The

Catholic world is entitled to require for the visible Chief of the Church

the plenitude of liberty which is essential for the government of Catholic

society, and the restoration of that ancient monarchy which has subjects

in every part of the world. The Catholic nations will never allow the head

of their Church to be robbed of his independence and reduced to be the

subject of a foreign Prince. They will not suffer him to be degraded by a

faction which, under the cloak of his venerable name, is endeavoring to

undermine and destroy his power. In order that the Bishop of Rome, who is

at the same time the Sovereign Pastor of the Church, may be able to

exercise the duties of his exalted office, it is necessary that he should

be also Sovereign of Rome.”

Spain came next. On the 21st December, 1848, the Spanish ministry

addressed to the other Catholic nations the following circular letter:

“The government of her Majesty has decided on doing whatever shall be

necessary in order to reinstate the Holy Father in a state of independence

and dignity, which will admit of his discharging the duties of his sacred

office. With a view to this end the government of Spain, having been

apprised of the Pope’s flight, addressed the French Government, which

declared itself prepared to sustain the liberty of the Pontiff. These

negotiations, nevertheless, may be considered as insufficient when we

glance at the turn which affairs have taken at Rome. There is no question

any longer of protecting the liberty of the Pope, but of re-establishing

his authority on a solid and stable basis, and of securing him against

violence. It is well known to you that the Catholic Powers have always had

it at heart to guarantee the sovereignty of the Pope, and assure to him an

independent position. Such position is so important for the Christian

States that it cannot on any account be subjected to the will and pleasure

of so small a portion of the Catholic world as the Roman States. It is the

belief of Spain that the Catholic Powers cannot commit the liberty of the

Pope to the caprice of the city of Rome. Nor can they permit that, whilst

all the Catholic nations are warmly offering to the Holy Father proofs of

their profound respect, a single town of Italy shall dare to outrage his

dignity, and restrict the Pope to a state of independence which could be

so easily abused at any time as a religious power. These considerations

induce the government of her Majesty to invite the other Catholic Powers

to come to an understanding on the means to be employed for averting the

evils which would arise, if matters remained in their present position. In

furtherance of this object, her Majesty has ordered her government to

address the governments of France, Austria, Bavaria, Sardinia, Tuscany and

Naples, in order to invite them to name Plenipotentiaries, and appoint the

place where they shall meet.”

The Catholic Powers welcomed cordially this admirable note, which

expressed so clearly the idea which they all entertained. Piedmont alone,

as if already casting a covetous eye on Rome and its territory, refused to

concur. Its refusal was expressed by the pen of the once so highly

esteemed Abbate Gioberti, who was President of the Council. It was not

long till Piedmont reaped its reward. The following year, 1849, on the 22d

of March, it had to lament the disastrous battle of Novara.

Not long after, Cardinal Antonelli, who remained with the Pope, addressed,

on the part of the Holy See, to the governments of France, Austria, Spain

and Naples, a highly important paper. It recapitulated, in a clear and

forcible manner, all that had occurred at Rome from the time of the Pope’s

departure till the 18th of February, and then requested, in the most

formal and pressing way possible, the intervention of these four Catholic

Powers. The governments thus appealed to promptly replied by sending

Plenipotentiaries to Gaeta, where the Pope desired that the diplomatic

conference should be opened. The Catholic countries had already

anticipated the intentions of the Sovereign Pontiff—some by acts, others

by energetic resolutions. On the one hand, General Cavaignac, to whom

France had for the time committed her sword, had concentrated, as early as

the month of September, 1848, a body of troops under the command of

General Molliere, whose duty it should be to hold themselves in readiness

to embark for Italy at the first signal. Spain, on the other hand,

prepared her fleet. The King of the Two Sicilies could scarcely restrain

the ardor of his soldiers. Portugal, even, which had not been mentioned in

the document addressed to the four Catholic Powers, considered it a duty

to cause it to be represented to the government of the Pope through its

ambassador, the Baron de Verda Cruz, that the Portuguese people would be

most happy to take up arms in the interest of the Papal cause. Portugal

was among the first, on occasion of the 16th November, 1848, to offer

hospitality to the Sovereign Pontiff, and to invite him to one of the

finest residences in Christendom, the magnificent palace of Mafra.

(M9) The time of the Holy Father at Gaeta was employed, as it usually is,

in prayer, the giving of audiences and the business of the Church. In one

point, there was an exception to the rules of the Papal Court. The King of

Naples, the Queen and the Princes were admitted every day to the table of

the Pope. King Ferdinand, notwithstanding his friendly relations with Pius

IX., never availed himself of this privilege without a new daily

invitation. In all other respects, likewise, his conduct towards the Holy

Father was all that the most devout Catholic could desire.

(M10) The internal state of the Catholic Powers caused their action to be

delayed. The political troubles of the Austrian Empire obliged the Emperor

Ferdinand to abdicate in favor of his youthful nephew, Francis Joseph.

France was laboring to consolidate her newly-founded Republic. There was

question of electing a president. And if, on the occasion, Prince Louis

Napoleon Bonaparte secured the greatest number of votes, he owed this

success, if not wholly, in great measure, at least, to his repudiation of

the undutiful conduct of his cousin, the Prince of Canino, at Rome, and

his declaration in favor of the temporal sovereignty of the Pope. On the

eve of the election he wrote as follows to the Papal Nuncio: “My Lord, I

am anxious that the rumors which tend to make me an accomplice of the

conduct of Prince Canino at Rome should not be credited by you. I have

not, for a long time, had any relations with the eldest son of Lucien

Bonaparte; and I am profoundly grieved that he has not understood that the

maintenance of the temporal sovereignty of the venerable Head of the

Church is intimately connected with the glory of Catholicism, no less than

with the liberty and independence of Italy. Accept, my Lord, the

expression of my sentiments of high esteem.

“LOUIS NAPOLEON BONAPARTE.”

(M11) Spain had already despatched a fleet to Gaeta, the Austrians had

advanced in the direction of Ferrara, and the King of Naples at Terracina,

when, on the 25th of April 1849, a French army, under the command of

General Oudinot, disembarked at Civita Vecchia. This military expedition

was, at first, considerably thwarted by diplomacy. The general-in-chief

was assured at the outset that he had only to show himself before the

walls of Rome, and the gates would be opened immediately in consequence of

the reaction which was taking place within. Accordingly, the army

advanced, on the 30th April, to the foot of the ramparts, and was received

with a discharge of fire-arms. Nevertheless, one of the gates was opened

to a French battalion. The Romans came out in crowds, waving white

handkerchiefs, and shouting, “Peace is concluded! Peace for ever! Enemies

in the morning, we are brothers this evening! Long live the French!” The

soldiers, deceived by these demonstrations, were persuaded to enter they

city. They were at once disarmed and declared prisoners of war. It was now

manifest that a regular siege was necessary. An impediment was, however,

thrown in the way of military operations, by a civil or diplomatic agent

who entered Rome, and in the course of a few weeks concluded with the

revolutionists a treaty which was contrary to his instructions, to those

of the commander-in-chief, to the honor of France and the objects of the

expedition. Odillon Barrot was, at that time, President of the French

Ministry—the same Odillon Barrot who, in 1830, was prefect of police, and

allowed the mansion of the Archbishop to be demolished without taking any

measures for its protection. Such conduct, as has been well observed,

showed that this official loved anarchy more than order. Hence, probably,

arose those impediments to the Roman expedition which gave time to (M12)

the revolutionists to organize, under the leadership of a chief of

banditti, Garibaldi, of Genoa. They availed themselves, at the same time,

of the leisure afforded, to massacre many faithful priests, to enable some

renegade monks to profane the solemnities of religion, and to commit, in

the hospitals, outrages which were, until that time, unheard of.

Unfortunate soldiers, sick and at the point of death, beholding persons

dressed like Nuns and Sisters of Charity, expected to hear from them the

language of religion, in order to assist them in preparing for a Christian

death. It can easily be imagined how greatly they were shocked to hear

only lascivious expressions and the most infamous provocations to vice.

These pretended Sisters of Charity were nothing else than professed

prostitutes. Their president, a revolutionary princess, admits, in her

memoirs, this melancholy fact.

(M13) The King of Naples and General Cordova, commander-in-chief of the

Spanish army, offered to General Oudinot the aid of their arms. He thanked

them, but declined their offer, desiring, for the honor of the French

army, that as it had begun, so it should complete the duty which it had

undertaken. The French general represented, and with reason, to the

Spanish commander, that he would have entered Rome several weeks sooner

but for the diplomatic negotiations already alluded to. The

Plenipotentiary, who conducted these negotiations, having been disavowed,

the general held himself alone responsible, and it was his duty to

simplify matters as much as possible. He urged, moreover, that when an

army is besieging a place no foreign troops can approach it, unless their

assistance is requested either by the besiegers or the besieged. The

latter were far from having any claim to the protection of Spain, and the

French army was in a position to meet every contingency.

(M14) On the 30th June, 1849, the city surrendered, unconditionally. On

3rd July the French army entered Rome, amidst the joyous acclamations of

the native Roman people.

(M15) On the same day General Oudinot despatched Colonel Niel to Gaeta, in

order to deliver to the Sovereign Pontiff the keys of his capital. Pius

IX. was overjoyed at the arrival of the French officer. His people were

now free. The war was at an end. Blood no longer flowed. There was nothing

wanting to his satisfaction and happiness. “O! speak to me of my children

of Rome and France,” he exclaimed. “How they must have suffered! How

earnestly have I prayed for them!” He then listened with interest, and the

feelings of a father, to the recital of the sufferings of the French army

and their prolonged labors, which were patiently undergone; in order to

save the edifices and monuments of Rome from irreparable destruction.

Unable, at length, to contain his emotion, he spoke thus to Colonel Niel:

“Colonel, I have often said, on other occasions, and I am happy to be able

to repeat the same to-day, after so great a service, that I have always

relied on France. That country had promised me nothing, but I understood

full well, that when opportunity offered she would give to the Church her

treasures, her blood, and what is, perhaps, still more difficult for her

valiant children, that bravery which can restrain itself, that patience

and perseverance to which is due the preservation of Rome, that treasure

of the world, that beloved and sorely-tried city, towards which, during

these days of exile, I have always looked in great anxiety of mind. Say to

the commander-in-chief, to all the generals and all the officers—would it

could also be said to every soldier of France!—that there are no bounds to

my gratitude. My prayers for the prosperity of your country will be more

fervent than ever. My love for the French people has been increased, if,

indeed, anything could make it greater than it was, by the great service

which I now acknowledge.”

(M16) At the same time, Pius IX. addressed an appropriate letter to

General Oudinot. He recognized the well-known valor of the French armies,

which was sustained by the justice of the cause which they came to defend,

and which won for them the meed of victory. In congratulating the general

on the principal share which he bore in the important event, the Holy

Father was careful to say that he rejoiced not over the bloodshed which

had necessarily occurred, but in the triumph of order over anarchy, and

because liberty was restored to honest and Christian people, for whom it

would no longer be a crime to enjoy the property which God had bestowed

upon them, and to adore Him, with becoming pomp of worship, without

incurring the risk of being deprived of life or liberty. In the difficult

circumstances which might arise, the Holy Father would rely on the Divine

protection. As it might prove useful to the French army to be acquainted

with the events of his Pontificate, he sent, along with his letter, a

number of copies of the Allocution, in which these events are related.

This paper, he stated, proved abundantly that the army had won a victory

over the enemies of human society, and that their triumph, consequently,

would awaken sentiments of gratitude in the breasts of all honest men

throughout Europe and the whole civilized world.

(M17) The President of the French Republic, Louis Napoleon, the French

Minister of War and the National Assembly, all joined in congratulating

General Oudinot and his army. Pius IX. had just appointed (31st July) a

commission of three Cardinals for the government of the Roman States, when

General Oudinot arrived at Gaeta, and urged the Pope to return himself to

his capital. Pius IX. had already stated to M. de Corcelles, the

Plenipotentiary of France, his objections to an immediate return. He now

held the same language to General Oudinot. He could not, he said, so far

forget the purely moral nature of his power as to bind himself in a

positive way, when there was nothing settled as to matters of detail, and

especially when he was called upon to speak in presence of a first-class

Power, whose exigencies were no secret. Ought he to condemn himself to

appear to act under the impulsion of force? If he did anything good, was

it not necessary that his acts should be spontaneous, and should also have

the appearance of being so? Were not his inclinations well known? Were

they not calculated to inspire confidence? Nevertheless, it was his

intention to return, in a few days, to his States, and to remain some time

at Castel-Gandolfo, in the midst of the French army. General Oudinot

returned to Rome fully assured of the speedy return of the Holy Father.

(M18) About this time it became manifest that the French Republic desired

to restore the Pope as a mere agent of their newly-instituted government.

The French ministry, of which Odillon Barrot was the head, saw, with

impatience, that Pontifical affairs were not proceeding to such a

conclusion as they wished. Accordingly, General Oudinot was recalled and

replaced by General Rostolan, the next in command. Two days later, a

letter signed “Louis Napoleon,” and addressed to Colonel Edgar Ney, who

was also the bearer of it, was despatched to Rome. This letter contained

insulting allusions to the Pontifical government; and its requirements

would have annihilated, in the estimation of Europe, the independence of

the Sovereign Pontiff, whilst personally dishonoring him. “I thus

recapitulate,” said the president, in this memorable epistle, “the

temporal power of the Pope, _a general amnesty, secularization of the

administration, and liberal government_.” It was appointed that General

Rostolan should publish this ill-timed letter, and carry it into effect.

He refused to do so, tendered his resignation, and thus firmly replied:

“Conscience requires that I should sacrifice my position and my

sympathies. My successor, more fortunate than myself, will perhaps enjoy

the signal honor to terminate peacefully the work which we have begun at

the head of the army. As a soldier and a Christian, I will rejoice on

account of the Sovereign Pontiff, who will have been restored to his

people, and because of France, which will have accomplished a noble and

most worthy mission.” To the Odillon Barrot ministry, which at one time

disowned the letter, and at another acknowledged it, and ordered its

publication, the general declared that he would never identify himself

with an act which, besides being unjust, would endanger the peace of all

Europe. According to his view, which was the same as that of the French

ambassadors, M. de Rayneval and M. de Corcelles, a general war would

follow the official publication of the letter of 18th August; and such a

war could not but prove fatal to the ideas of order which were beginning

to resume their empire. He loved his country too well to bear part in

incurring for it such fearful risks. Messrs. de Rayneval and de Corcelles

wrote to the same effect, and communicated to the French Government the

resolution of the Sovereign Pontiff to seek the protection of Austria, or

even to repair to America, rather than submit to the constraint with which

he was threatened.

(M19) It was not, however, ordained that the conditions of the Pope’s

restoration should be decided by the President of the French Republic, or

the Odillon Barrot ministry. The National Assembly of France took the

matter in hand, and after a keen debate, which lasted three days—13th,

18th and 19th October—came to a resolution favorable to the Holy See.

There can be no doubt that the Chamber was greatly influenced by the

powerful eloquence of M. de Montalembert. “It has been said,” observed

this orator, “that the honor of our flag was compromised by the expedition

undertaken against Rome in order to destroy the Roman Republic and restore

the authority of the Pope. All in this Assembly must feel insulted by this

reproach, and cannot but repel it, as I do at this moment. No! the honor

of our flag was never compromised. No! never did this noble flag cover

with its folds a more noble enterprise. History will tell. I confidently

invoke its testimony and its judgment. History will throw a veil over all

the ambiguity, tergiversation and contestation which have been pointed to

with so much bitterness and so eager a desire to spread discord amongst

us. It will ignore all this, or, rather, it will proclaim it all, in order

that the greatness of the undertaking may become apparent from the number

and nature of the difficulties that have been surmounted.

“History will say that a thousand years from the time of Charlemagne, and

fifty from that of Napoleon—a thousand years after Charlemagne had won for

himself imperishable glory by restoring the Pontifical State, and fifty

years after Napoleon, in the zenith of power and prestige, had failed in

his endeavor to undo the work of his predecessor; history will say that

France has remained true to her traditions and deaf to odious counsels.

History will say that thirty thousand Frenchmen, under the leadership of

the worthy son of one of the giants of our great imperial glories, left

the shores of their country, in order to re-establish at Rome, in the

person of the Pope, right, equity, European and French interest. History

will further say what Pius IX. himself said, in his letter of thanks to

General Oudinot: ‘_The victory of the French arms is won over the enemies

of human society_.’ Yes! gentlemen, such will be the judgment of impartial

history; and it will be one of the brightest glories of France and the

nineteenth century. You will not attenuate, tarnish, eclipse this glory by

plunging into a mass of contradictions, complications, and inextricable

inconsistency. Know you what would dim for ever the lustre of the French

flag? It would be to set it in opposition to the Cross, to the Tiara,

which it has delivered. It would be to transform the soldiers of France,

the protectors of the Pope, into his oppressors. It would be to exchange

the _role_ and the glory of Charlemagne for a pitiful mimicry of

Garibaldi.”

(M20) A large majority of the legislative assembly agreed with

Montalembert. The news of their decision, which was in accordance with the

general sentiment of the French nation, was speedily conveyed to the

Pontifical Court. It dispelled all the unpleasant (M21) apprehensions

which had hitherto prevailed, and gave great satisfaction to the Holy

Father. The influence which it exercised over his plans for the future may

be learned from the reply which he gave to a deputation from the

municipality of Rome, which now came to pray that he would return to his

States. “It was repugnant to us,” said he, “to return to our States, so

long as France made it a question whether we should be independent. But

now that a happy solution has been reached, which appears to put an end to

all doubt on this point, we hope to be able, in a short time, to return to

our city of Rome.” Accordingly, on 12th April, 1850, Pius IX. made his

entrance into Rome amidst the dutiful and joyous acclamations of the

French army and the Roman people. On the 18th day of the same month he

formally blessed the arms and colors of France in front of St. Peter’s

Church. Thus ended at Rome a political revolution, which nothing less

powerful than Catholic sentiment could have overcome.

(M22) Whilst the comparatively small Pontifical State was agitated by

revolution, the greater kingdom of the church was steadily pursuing, under

the auspices of its august Chief, its grand career of progress and

development. A new era seemed to have dawned over all those great

countries which the Photian schism had so seriously affected. About the

time of Pius the Ninth’s accession, more favorable dispositions had come

to prevail among the Greeks of Constantinople, of Syria, of Palestine, of

Egypt. Among the Armenians and Chaldeans there were numerous conversions,

whilst even the Turks showed a better feeling towards the Catholic people,

among whom their lot was cast. We have already seen how well such

sentiments were encouraged by the newly-elected Pontiff. His words of

kindness were repaid by increased affection for the Catholic people, and

the wish, not to say the belief, that when the Turkish Empire fell, the

fragments of its once great inheritance would be gathered up by Catholics.

“Are this belief and friendship,” asks the Abbe Etienne, “an indication of

the speedy reunion of the children of Mahomet with the great Christian

family? We have much reason to think so, when we behold Islamism

everywhere dwindling away and giving place to the true faith.” Damascus,

so sacred in Mussulman estimation, and so intolerant that no Christian

could pass within its gates except bareheaded, and on paying a capitation

tax, now beholds with pleasure the celebration of Catholic rites. So great

was the change that in a short time all the inhabitants of a village in

the neighborhood embraced the Catholic faith. The Mahometans who are most

capable of appreciating religious questions, study Christianity secretly.

Not long ago, a Turk of Damascus caused a Catholic priest to be called to

his deathbed, and begged to be baptized. Great was the surprise of the

missionary to find him as well acquainted with the truths of religion as

he was anxious to receive the sacrament of regeneration. A few moments

later the good priest beheld his neophyte expire, expressing the most

pious sentiments.

In Russia, the most powerful seat of the great eastern schism, Catholics

were long subjected to the most trying persecution. It is well known what

influence the venerable Pontiff, Gregory XVI., exercised over the mind of

the late Emperor Nicholas, and that he succeeded in causing him to

mitigate the evils which weighed so heavily on his Catholic subjects. Pius

IX. was still more successful. Having concluded a Concordat with the Czar,

which was signed at Rome on the 3rd August, 1847, by Cardinal

Lambruschini, on the part of the Holy See, and Counts Bloudoff and

Boutenieff, on the part of Russia, Pius IX., in a consistory held on 3rd

July of the same year, instituted bishops for the following Sees of the

Russian Empire: The Metropolitan Church of Mohilow, the united dioceses of

Luccoria and Zitomeritz, in Volhynia, the diocese of Vilna, in Poland, and

a coadjutor, with right of succession, for the archbishopric of Mohilow.

The Concordat contained 31 articles. Article 1st. Seven Roman Catholic

dioceses are established in the Russian Empire—an archbishopric and six

bishoprics, viz.: the archbishopric of Mohilow, which comprises all those

parts of the Empire which are not contained in the undermentioned

dioceses. The Grand Duchy of Finland is also included in this archdiocese.

The diocese of Vilna, comprising the governments of Vilna and Grodno,

according to their present limits; the diocese of Telsca, or Samogitia,

comprising the governments of Courland and Kowno; the diocese of Minsk,

comprising the government of Minsk, as at present limited; the diocese of

Luceoria and Zitomeritz, containing the governments of Kiovia and

Volhynia; the diocese of Kaminiec, comprising the government of Podolia;

the new diocese of Kherson, containing the Province of Bessarabia, the

governments of Khersonesus, Ecatherinaslaw, Taurida, Saratow and Astracan,

together with the regions that are subject to the general government of

the Caucasus.

In glancing at the articles of the Concordat, the Catholic reader will be

agreeably surprised to observe that in so many important things the wishes

of the Holy Father were acceded to, whilst it is matter for regret that in

regard to others the Plenipotentiaries could not come to an understanding.

It is provided by the 2nd and 3rd articles that apostolic letters under

the leaden seal shall determine the extent and limits of the dioceses, as

indicated in article 1st. The decrees of execution shall express the

number and the names of the parishes of each diocese, and shall be

submitted for the sanction of the Holy See. The number of suffragan

bishoprics, as settled by the apostolic letters of Pius VI. in 1789, is

retained in the six ancient dioceses. In the following articles, from 4 to

10, it is agreed that the suffragan of the new diocese of Kherson shall

reside in the town of Saratow. The annual allowance to the Bishop of

Kherson shall be 4,480 silver roubles. His suffragan shall have the same

income as the other bishops of the Empire, viz.: 2,000 silver roubles. The

chapter of the Cathedral Church of Kherson shall consist of nine members,

viz.: two prelates or dignitaries, the president and archdeacon; four

canons, of whom three shall discharge the duties of theologian,

penitentiary and rector; and three resident priests, or beneficiaries. In

the new bishopric of Kherson there shall be a diocesan seminary, in which

from fifteen to twenty-five students shall be supported at the cost of the

government, the same as those who enjoy a pension in other seminaries.

Until a Catholic bishop of the Armenian rite is named, the spiritual wants

of the Armenian Catholics of the dioceses of Kherson and Kaminiec shall be

provided for by applying the ninth chapter of the Council of Lateran, held

in 1215. The bishops of Kaminiec and Kherson shall determine the number of

Catholic Armenian ecclesiastics who shall be educated in their seminaries

at the expense of the government. In each of these seminaries there shall

reside a Catholic Armenian priest, in order to instruct the students in

the ceremonies of their national rite. As often as the spiritual wants of

the Armenian Roman Catholics of the newly-instituted diocese of Kherson

shall require it, the bishop, besides the means hitherto employed for this

purpose, may send priests as missionaries, and the government will supply

the funds that shall be necessary for their journeys and sustenance.

Articles 11 and 12 provide that the number of dioceses in the Kingdom of

Poland shall remain the same as ordained by the Apostolical Letters of

Pius VII., of date 30th June, 1818. There is no change as to the number

and designation of the suffragans of these dioceses. The appointment of

bishops for the dioceses and the suffragan bishoprics of the Empire of

Russia and the Kingdom of Poland shall only take effect after each

nomination shall have been agreed upon between the Emperor and the Holy

See. Canonical institution will be given by the Roman Pontiff in the usual

form.

In articles 13-20 are contained the following regulations: the bishop is

the sole judge and administrator of the ecclesiastical affairs of his

diocese, having due regard to the canonical obedience which he owes to the

Holy Apostolic See. Certain affairs must be, in the first place, submitted

to the deliberations of the diocesan consistory. Such affairs are decided

by the bishop, after having been examined by the consistory, which,

however, is only consultative. The bishop is by no means bound to give the

reasons of his decision, even in case of his opinion being different from

that of the consistory. The other affairs of the diocese, which are called

_administrative_, and among which are included cases of conscience, and,

as has been said above, cases of discipline which are visited only by

light punishments and pastoral admonitions, depend entirely on the

authority and the spontaneous decision of the bishop. All the members of

the consistory are ecclesiastics. Their nomination and their revocation

belong to the bishop. The nominations are so made as not to displease the

government. The officials of the consistorial chancery are confirmed by

the bishop, on the presentation of the secretary of the consistory. The

secretary of the bishop, who is charged with official and private

correspondence, is named directly by the bishop; and an ecclesiastic, as

the bishop thinks proper, may be chosen. The duties of the members of the

consistory cease when the bishop dies or resigns, and also when the

administration of a vacant See comes to an end.

From articles 21-29 we read as follows: The bishop has the supreme

direction of the teaching of doctrine and discipline in the seminaries of

his diocese, according to the prescriptions of the Council of Trent. The

choice of rectors, inspectors and Professors for the diocesan seminaries

is reserved to the bishop. Before naming them, he must ascertain that, as

regards their civil conduct, they will not give occasion to any objection

on the part of the government. The Archbishop Metropolitan of Mohilow

shall exercise in the ecclesiastical academy of St. Petersburg the same

jurisdiction as does each bishop in his diocesan seminary. He is the sole

chief of this academy—its supreme director. The council or directory of

this academy is only consultative. The choice of the rector, the inspector

and professors of this academy, shall be made by the archbishop, after he

has received the report of the Academical Council. The professors and

assistant-professors of Theological science shall always be chosen among

ecclesiastics. The other masters may be selected among lay persons,

professing the Roman Catholic religion. The confessors of the students of

each seminary and of the academy shall take no part in the disciplinary

government of the establishment. They shall be chosen and nominated by the

bishop or archbishop. When the limits of the dioceses shall have been

fixed according to the new regulation, the archbishop, with the advice of

the ordinaries, shall determine, once for all, the number of students that

each diocese may send to the academy. The programme of studies in the

seminaries shall be regulated by the bishops. The archbishop shall decide

upon that of the academy after having conferred with the Academical

Council. When the rule of the ecclesiastical academy of St. Petersburg

shall have been modified conformably with the principles agreed upon in

the preceding articles, the Archbishop of Mohilow will send to the Holy

See a report on the academy like that which was made by Archbishop

Koromanski when the academy was restored.

Articles 30 and 31. Wherever the right of patronage does not exist, or has

been discontinued for a certain time, parish priests shall be appointed by

the bishop. They must not offend the government, and must have undergone

examination and competition according to the rules laid down by the

Council of Trent. Roman Catholic churches may be freely repaired at the

expense of communities or individuals who shall please to take charge of

this work. When their own resources are insufficient, they may apply to

the Imperial Government in order to obtain assistance. New churches shall

be constructed, and the number of parishes augmented, when such measures

become necessary from the increase of population, the too great extent of

existing parishes, or the difficulty of communications.