BRIGANDS—BANDS OF ROBBERS DISPERSED BY THE GOVERNMENT.

“Much is said of the brigands who, we are told, lay the country desolate.

It has fallen to our lot to pass through the country, in all directions,

without seeing even the shadow of a robber. It cannot be denied that, from

time to time, we hear of a diligence stopped, of a traveller plundered.

Even one accident of this kind is too much, but we must remember that the

administration has employed all the means in its power to repress these

disorders. Thanks to energetic measures, the brigands have been arrested

at all points and punished. When in France a diligence is stopped; when in

going from London to Windsor a lady of the Queen’s palace is robbed of her

luggage and jewels, such incidents passed unnoticed; but when, on an

isolated road in the Roman States, the least fact of this nature takes

place, the passenger, for a pretext, prints the news in large characters,

and cries for vengeance on the government. On the side of Rome the attacks

which have taken place at distant intervals have never assumed an

appearance calculated to excite anxiety.

“In the Romagna, organized bands have been formed, which, taking advantage

of the Tuscan frontier, easily escaped pursuit, and were for a time to be

dreaded. The government declared unceasing war against them, and after

several engagements, in which a certain number of _gens d’armes_ were

either killed or wounded, these bands have been in a great measure

dispersed. The Italians always depend for the completion of their projects

on foreign support. If this support were to fail, then they would adopt a

proper course much more readily than would be necessary. Meanwhile, in

England and Sardinia, the organs of the press should cease to excite the

passions, and Catholic Powers should continue to give the Holy See evident

marks of sympathy. But how can we hope that enemies, animated with such a

spirit as influences the opponents of the Holy See, should put a stop to

their attacks when they have been made in so remarkable a manner?”

EXTRAORDINARILY SMALL NUMBER OF ECCLESIASTICS EMPLOYED BY THE PAPAL

GOVERNMENT.

Those who are generally mentioned as _ecclesiastics_, are not necessarily

priests or in holy orders.

“Count Rayneval took occasion to show, with proofs in his hands, that the

half of these supposed priests were not in orders.... The Roman prelates

are not all bound to enter into holy orders. For the most part they

dispense with them. Can we then call by the name of priests those who have

nothing of the priest but the uniform? Is Count Spada a more zealous or a

more skilful administrator now than when, in the costume of a priest, he

officiated as Minister of War? Do Monsignor Matteuci (Minister of Police),

Monsignor Mertel (Minister of the Interior), Monsignor Berardi (substitute

of the Secretary of State), and so many others, who have liberty to marry

to-morrow, constitute a religious caste, sacrificing its own interests to

the interests of the country, and would they become, all of a sudden,

irreproachable if they were dressed differently? If we examine the share

given the prelates, both priests and non-priests, in the Roman

administration, we shall arrive at some results which it is important to

notice. Out of Rome, that is, throughout the whole extent of the

Pontifical States, with the exception of the capital—in the Legations, the

Marshes, Umbria, and all the Provinces, to the number of eighteen, how

many ecclesiastics do you think are employed? Their number does not exceed

fifteen—one for each Province except three, where there is not one at all.

They are delegates, or, as we should say, prefects. The councils, the

tribunals, and offices of all sorts, are filled with laymen. So that for

one ecclesiastic in office, we have in the Roman Provinces one hundred and

ninety-five laymen.”

The following table, which appeared in the London _Weekly Register_ (_The

Weekly Register, June_, 1859.), shows at a glance what a small proportion

the clerical bore to the lay element in the government of the Papal

States:

Ministries. Eccles. Lay Places. Eccles. Lay Salary

Places. Salary

Secretariate of State 14 18 $100,500 $8,340

Justice and Police 277 3,271 110,205 637,602

Public Instruction 3 9 1,320 1,824

Finance 7 3,084 10,320 730,268

Commerce, P. Work 1 347 2,400 69,808

Arms 125 51,885

Total 303 6,854 $224,755 $1,490,747

M. De Rayneval admits that the people are not enterprising. If they do not

show much industrial activity, this is to be ascribed not to the

government, but to the climate, the facility with which everything

necessary for comfort is obtained, and the long-established habits of the

natives of the South of Europe. “The condition of the population,

nevertheless,” adds the ambassador, “is comparatively good. They readily

take part in public amusements, when pleasure may be read on every

countenance. Are these the misgoverned people ‘_whose miseries excite the

commiseration of all Europe?_’ There is misery, no doubt, as there is

everywhere. But it is less than in lands that are not so highly favored.

The necessaries of life are so cheap as to be easily procured. Private

charity never fails; and there are numerous and efficient public

benevolent establishments.”

(M48) It may be said, by way of supplement to M. De Rayneval’s report,

that Pius IX. did all in his power to encourage both science and the fine

arts. His many foundations for their promotion are his witness. Among the

rest are the College of Sinigaglia, and the _Seminario Pio_ at Rome,

together with the educational establishments, endowed from his private

resources, at Perugia, Civita Vecchia, Ancona and Pesaro. To him also are

due the high renown to which rose the studies of the Roman university, the

restoration of the Appian way, and the many archæological works which have

won for their august promoter the glorious surname of _Vindex

Antiquitatis_. His day would be memorable if it had been illustrated only

by the names of Vico, Secchi, Rossi and Visconti.

It is impossible to overrate the importance of Count de Rayneval’s report,

or the influence which it exercised over the public mind of Europe, when,

at length, through the agency of the British and Belgian press, it

obtained publicity. A refutation of Cavour’s interested calumnies, so

able, distinct and straightforward, powerfully impressed the minds of

British statesmen, and caused them to see the grievous error into which

they had been betrayed at the Congress of Paris, by Count Cavour and the

Emperor Louis Napoleon, in the interest of their fellow-conspirators

against the sovereignty of the Pope.

(M49) Lord Clarendon was the first who had knowledge of the now celebrated

state paper. He was also the first who, for the sake of truth and justice,

made it public, committing it to the English press, whence it found its

way to continental Europe. This eminent British statesman promptly

communicated with Count Cavour, and took him to task severely for his

double dealing at the congress, and for having induced him, as British

Plenipotentiary, by false statements, to sanction his views.

(M50) The calumnies and misrepresentations of the Cavour-Napoleon party

had, indeed, been met by anticipation in the decree, known as _motu

proprio_, which Pius IX. issued from Portici, shortly before his return to

Rome. This decree indicated the reforms which, as we learn from Count de

Rayneval’s report, were afterwards carried out. It even granted a

constitution as complete as was consistent with the existence of the Papal

Sovereignty. More could not be looked for. The much-vaunted constitution

of England itself does not abrogate or nullify the monarchy. But neither

this nor any other measure of reform, however well adapted to

circumstances and the character of the people, could ever have satisfied

the _Italianissimi_, whose hatred of every existing institution was

boundless as it was incomprehensible. The Holy Father solemnly declared

that he decreed the measures in question for the good of his people, and

under the eye of heaven. “They are such,” he adds, at the conclusion of

the document, _motu proprio_, “as to be compatible with our dignity, and,

if faithfully carried out, we are convinced that they will produce results

which must command the approval of all wise minds. The good sense of all

among you who aspire to what is best, with a fervor proportionate to the

ills which you have endured, shall be our judge in this matter. Above all,

let us place our trust in God, who, even in fulfilling the decrees of His

justice, is never unmindful of His mercy.” It could not be expected, and

it was not expected, that the Pope should resign his sovereignty. The

words of Donoso Cortez, spoken in the Spanish parliament, in defence of

the temporal sovereignty, were received at the time with universal

acceptance.

(M51) “Civilized Europe,” said this distinguished author and statesman,

“will not consent to see enthroned in that mad city of Rome a new and

strange dynasty begotten of crime. And let no one here say, that in this

matter there are two separate questions—one a temporal question, the other

entirely spiritual—that the difficulty lies between the temporal sovereign

and his subjects; that the Pontiff has been respected and still subsists.”

Two words on this point—just two words—shall suffice to make us understand

the whole matter.

“It is perfectly true that the spiritual power of the Papacy is its

principal power; the temporal is only an accessory, but that accessory is

one that is indispensible. The Catholic world has a right to insist upon

it, that the infallible organ of its belief shall be free and independent.

The Catholic world cannot know with certainty, as it needs must know,

whether that organ is really free and independent, unless it be sovereign.

For he alone who is sovereign, depends on no other power. Hence it is that

the question of sovereignty, which everywhere else is a political

question, is in Rome a religious question.”

“Constituent assemblies may exist rightfully elsewhere; at Rome they

cannot; at Rome there can be no constituent power outside of and apart

from the constituted power. Neither Rome herself nor the Pontifical States

belong to Rome or belong to the Pope—they belong to the Catholic world.

The Catholic world has recognized, in the Pope, the lawful possessor

thereof, in order to his being free and independent; and the Pope may not

strip himself of this sovereignty, this independence.”

The greatest statesmen of the age, such as Guizot, Thiers, and

Montalembert, in France; Normanby, Lansdowne, Disraeli, and even

Palmerston, in England; the statesmen of Prussia, and even those of the

Russian Empire; the Emperor of Austria and his advisers; Spain, Portugal

and Naples, all shared the opinion of the illustrious Spanish statesman,

Donoso Cortes. All alike favored the restoration of the Holy Father, and

the securing of his government against the accidents of revolution in the

future by placing it under the protection of the Great Powers. “The

affairs Rome,” wrote the Russian Chancellor in a circular, “cause to the

government of his Majesty the Emperor great concern; and it were a serious

error to think that we take a less lively interest than the other Catholic

governments in the situation to which his Holiness Pope Pius IX. has been

brought by the events of the time. There can be no room for doubting that

the Holy Father shall receive from the Emperor a loyal support towards the

restoration of his temporal and spiritual power, and that the Russian

government shall co-operate cheerfully in all the measures necessary to

this result; for it cherishes against the court of Rome no sentiment of

religious animosity or rivalry.”

(M52) Sardinia alone held aloof. Its minister did not, like the other

European ambassadors, seek the presence of the Pope when he was pressed by

the revolutionists. Nor did he repair, as they did, to Gaeta, but remained

in Rome, and, to the great surprise and scandal of all the European

Courts, transacted business with the governments which reigned there in

the absence of the legitimate sovereign. The absorption of all the states

of Italy, not excepting that of the Pope, by Piedmont, was the ruling idea

of Piedmontese statesmen. They were guided by a selfish view to what they

considered their own interest, not by principles that were universally

recognized. Such were continental liberals. The English liberals, the

party of reform, thought differently. One of their chiefs, Lord Lansdowne,

whose high character as a statesman gives weight to his words, declared,

in the British House of Peers, when the French expedition to Rome was

discussed there, that “the condition of the Pope’s sovereignty is

especially remarkable in this, that so far as his temporal power is

concerned, he is only a sovereign of the fourth or fifth order. In his

spiritual power he enjoys a sovereignty without its equal on earth. Every

country which has Roman Catholic subjects has an interest in the condition

of the Roman States, and should see to it that the Pope be able to

exercise his authority independently of any temporal influence that could

affect his spiritual power.” Thus did all Christendom—all the states which

owned the Christian name—true to immemorial tradition, consider that they

lay under the obligation to watch over the freedom and independence of the

great central power whence proceeded their early civilization.

The French government, in restoring Pius IX., only obeyed the will so

often and so clearly expressed of the European nations. Now that he was

once more firmly seated on the Pontifical throne, it was time, thought the

Cavour-Napoleon-Mazzini party, that he should introduce into his states

what they called true reform—_the Code Napoleon and the secularization of

his government_. This, as has been seen, he could not do. It was

tantamount to the abdication of his sovereignty. That he did reform,

however, wisely and efficiently, Count de Rayneval has abundantly shown.

His measures of reform were large and liberal, and, in the judgment of

eminent statesmen, left little room for improvement. It is necessary to

bestow a few words in making this fact still more apparent; for it was

long the fashion to say and insist that the policy of Pius IX., after his

restoration, was reactionary, and that the once-reforming Pope had, with

inconceivable inconsistency, ceased to be a reformer.

In the _motu proprio_, published by the Pope on occasion of reorganizing

his states in 1849, ’50, there was inaugurated as full a measure of

liberty as was compatible with the circumstances of the country and the

character of the people. Two political bodies, a council of state and a

council of finance were instituted. These were designed as temporary

institutions, whose object it should be to remedy the fearful evils caused

by the revolution—in plain terms, to bring order out of anarchy and chaos.

M. de Rayneval has shown that in this they were successful, and that they

also put an end to the disorder and difficulty caused by the issue of

forty millions of worthless paper which the _Republic_ had bequeathed to

them. The _Moniteur_, as well as the ambassador, admitted that by the end

of the first seven years the finances had nearly reached an _equilibrium_,

the deficit at that time being only half a million of dollars. This

temporary state of things was destined, once its objects were

accomplished, to give place to a more ample constitution, which certainly

would have been granted in due time but for the hostile intrigues of those

who blamed the most free and complete constitutional system. It will not

be without interest to consider what was thought among distinguished

foreigners in regard to the Pope’s early measures—measures which, it is

well known, were intended as a preparation for more advanced

constitutional government. The French Republic appointed a commission,

consisting of fifteen of its best statesmen, to examine and report upon

the political wisdom and practical value of the institutions which Pius

IX. had granted to his states. M. Thiers, to whom none will give credit

for being over friendly to the Holy See, drew up, signed and presented

this report:

“Your commission,” the report states, “has maturely examined this act,

_motu proprio_, in order to see whether the counsels which France believed

herself authorized to offer had borne such fruits as to prevent her

regretting having interfered in Roman affairs. Well, by a large majority,

twelve in fifteen, your commission declares that it sees in the _motu

proprio_ a first boon of such real value, that nothing but unjust

pretensions could overlook its importance. We shall discuss this act in

its every detail. But limiting ourselves, at present, to consider the

principle on which is based the Pontifical concession, we say that it

grants all desirable provincial and municipal liberties. As to political

liberties, consisting in the power of deciding on the public business of a

country in one of the two assemblies, and in union with the executive—as

in England, for instance—it is very true that the _motu proprio_ does not

grant this sort of political liberty, or only grants it in the rudimentary

form of a council without deliberative voice. This is a question of

immense gravity, which the Holy Father alone can solve, and which he and

the Christian world are interested in not leaving to chance. That on this

point he should have chosen to be prudent; that after his recent

experience he should have preferred not to reopen a career of agitation

among a people who have shown themselves so unprepared for parliamentary

liberty, is what we do not know that we have either the right or the cause

to deem blameworthy.”

A well-known British statesman expressed similar views. “We all know,”

said Lord Palmerston, “that the Pope, on his restoration to his states in

1849, published an ordinance called _motu proprio_, by which he declared

his intention to bestow institutions, not indeed on the large proportions

of a constitutional government, but based, nevertheless, on popular

election, and which, if they had only been carried out, must have given

his subjects such satisfaction as to render unnecessary the intervention

of a foreign army.” These words were uttered in 1856, when Lord Palmerston

ought to have known, if indeed he did not actually know, that the proposed

reforms of the Pope had been faithfully and successfully carried out. The

report of Count de Rayneval was before the world, and so important a state

paper could not have been unknown to a statesman who interested himself so

much in European affairs generally, and those of Rome in particular. The

Rayneval report, besides, which showed how completely Pius IX. had

fulfilled his promises—how assiduously and effectually he had labored in

the cause of reform—had been specially communicated, as has been seen, to

an eminent member of the British Cabinet, Lord Clarendon. It is not so

clear that the Pope’s subjects were not satisfied. None knew better than

Lord Palmerston, that there was always a foreign influence at Rome which

never ceased to cause discontent, and was ready, on occasion, to raise

disturbance. This alien and sinister influence was only too powerfully

seconded, both by some members of the British ministry and the intriguing

head of the French government.

Baron Sauzet, who was President of the French Chamber of Deputies in the

reign of Louis Philippe, and who was, by no means, over partial to Rome,

wrote in 1860 on the system of legislation which obtained in the States of

the Church, and gave utterance to the opinion that it was a solid basis on

which Pius IX. was endeavoring to raise such a superstructure of

improvement as was adapted to the wants of modern society. Criminal law

was regulated according to the wise codes of Gregory XVI., which were a

real progress. Civil legislation had for its groundwork the old Roman law,

which the Popes, at various times, had wisely adapted to their age and the

circumstances of their people. There are certain points of great delicacy,

with regard to which, in Christian communities, religious authority only

can legislate. These excepted, the Justinian code, with some necessary

modifications, prevailed. Few changes have been made since Gregory the

Sixteenth’s time, and they are codified with such perfect scientific

lucidity as to be available to practitioners. This is one of the special

labors of the Council of State, which is aided by a commission consisting

of the most eminent and learned jurists of Rome. The distinguished

statesman (Baron Sauzet), moreover, repels the idea of thrusting on the

Romans the Code Napoleon, as was intended by the Emperor Louis Napoleon.

Galeotti, who was Minister of Justice in the Mazzini ministry, and who

cannot be suspected of much favor to the Holy See, declares that, “in the

Pontifical government there are many parts deserving of praise; it

contains many ancient institutions which are of unquestioned excellence,

and there are others of more modern date which the other provinces of

Italy might well enjoy. One may confidently say that there is no other

government in Italy in which the principle of discussion and deliberation

has been so long established and so generally practised.”

Galeotti further says, speaking of the Judicature: “The tribunal of the

Rota is the best and the most respected of the ancient institutions of

Rome. Some slight changes would make it the best in all Europe. The mode

of procedure followed in it is excellent, and might serve as a model in

every country where people would not have the administration of justice

reduced to the art of simply terminating lawsuits.”

Another author, whose remarks are deserving of attention, Monsignor Fevre,

says that law expenses are very moderate, the proceedings very rapid, and

the rules of the Judiciary among the very best of the kind. Besides, the

poor are never taxed by the courts, while they are always supplied with

counsel. In Rome itself the pious confraternity of St. Yeo (the patron

saint of lawyers) takes on itself, gratuitously, the cases of all poor

people, when they appear to have right on their side. The

arch-confraternity of San Girolamo Della Carita, also undertakes the

defence of prisoners and poor persons, especially widows. “It has the

administration of a legacy left by Felice Amadori, a noble Florentine, who

died in the year 1639. The principal objects of their solicitude are

persons confined in prison. These they visit, comfort, clothe, and

frequently liberate, either by paying the fine imposed on them as the

penalty of their offence, or by arranging matters with their creditors.

With a wise charity they endeavor to simplify and shorten causes; and they

employ a solicitor, who assists in settling disputes, and thus putting an

end to litigation. This confraternity embraces the flower of the Roman

prelacy, the patrician order and the priesthood.”

One is naturally inclined to ask how it came to pass that a people,

possessing such wise institutions, such an admirable system of

legislation, and a sovereign who constantly studied to enlarge and improve

their inherited benefits, were never satisfied? It would be hard to say

that the Romans, the real subjects of the Pope, were not satisfied. But

there were not wanting those who succeeded in making it appear that they

were not, and who also contrived to induce many of the Romans themselves

to believe that they had cause to be discontented. It was the fashion in

Piedmont to rail against everything clerical, and to such an extent did

this mania proceed, that they began to persecute the clergy. Through the

agency of the secret societies, whose chief was Mazzini, this

anti-clerical prejudice spread through all Italy, and even extended to

Rome, the government of which, as a matter of course, was bad, for no

other reason than that, being conducted by the Chief of the clergy, it was

reputed to be clerical. Thus did Count Cavour and the Piedmontese

government use the Mazzinian faction for the furtherance of their own

ambitious ends, whilst the Mazzinians believed that they were using them

as they intended to use them, and their king and all kings, as long as

there should be kings, for their subversive purposes, in the first

instance, and for the establishment, finally, of their Utopian republic on

the ruins of all thrones and regular governments whatsoever. As will be

seen, most recent history shows the first act of the drama has been

played, apparently to the profit of a king. Time will prove to whom, in

the end, victory shall belong. One institution at least will remain, for

no power, not even that of hell, can prevail against it. As in the early

days, when society had fallen to a state of chaos, and orderly government

had become impossible, it may, once more, raise the standard of order and

reconstitute the broken and scattered elements.

(M53) Rome and the Catholic world were yet rejoicing on occasion of the

happy restoration of Pius IX. to his states, and pilgrims still flocked

from every region of the universe to the holy city, when two remarkable

events came to add new glory to the flourishing church of America.

Hitherto America could reverence and invoke only one native saint. On 16th

July, 1850, took place the beatification of the venerable Peter Claver, of

the Society of Jesus, the apostle of New Granada; and in October, Mariana

de Paredes, of Flores, “the lily of Quito,” was beatified. The latter was

first cousin and contemporary of Saint Rose of Lima. This circumstance

vividly awakens the idea, that already saints, although there were few as

yet who could claim the honors of canonization, were not uncommon in

America. Whatever may have been the measure and excellence of her

children’s sanctity, the church was rapidly extending. So great was her

growth that, in the year 1850, Pius IX. considered it opportune to erect

four metropolitan sees in the United States—New York, Cincinnati, St.

Louis and New Orleans. Baltimore, the primatial see, was already

metropolitan.

(M54) The Holy Father showed no less solicitude for the welfare of the

church in France, Spain, and other European countries. Napoleon III.,

anxious to gain the good-will of Catholic France, prayed the Holy See to

erect a new diocese at Laval, to raise the see of Rennes to metropolitan

dignity, to reorganize the grand chaplaincy, and restore the chapter of

St. Denis. All this was done by a brief of 31st March, 1857, and there was

now a thoroughly good understanding between the Pope and the Emperor,

between the latter and the people over whom he ruled. (M55) It was even

said that Napoleon III. desired, like his uncle, to be anointed Emperor by

a Pope; that with a view to this end, he made many advances to Pius IX.,

and went so far even as to propose in confidence the abolition of the

organic articles, and a modification of the Code Napoleon, in so far as

that parties who marry before the church should be exempted from the civil

ceremony. A still less doubtful pledge of the continuance of amicable

relations between Rome and Paris was the baptism of the Prince Imperial.

The Emperor had asked the Pope to do him the favor to act as sponsor for

the child that Providence had deigned to give him, and Pius IX. readily

consented. As he could not be present in person at the ceremony, he caused

himself to be represented by his legate, _a latere_, Cardinal Patrizzi.

This cardinal, at the same time, presented to the Empress the golden rose,

which is blessed every year on the fourth Sunday of Lent, in order to be

sent to the princes, cities and churches on which the Pope desires to

confer special honor. The blessed rose was a small rose-tree in gold,

covered with rose-flowers. The vessel which contained it was of massive

gold. It stood on a pedestal of lapis lazzuli, which bore in Mosaic the

arms of the Pope and the Emperor. On the vase itself were sculptured the

birth of the Blessed Virgin, and the Presentation in the Temple.

It would have been well if all this friendship had been as sincere as it

was warmly expressed. It cannot, however, be forgotten that the government

of the Emperor Napoleon had suppressed the Rayneval report, and Pius IX.

must have thought, although prudence forbade him to say, that there was

reason to doubt the fidelity of his apparently devoted ally. “_Timeo

Danaos et dona ferentes._”

(M56) It may be said that, at this time, the Powers of the world vied with

one another in seeking the favor of the Pope. Isabella II., Queen of

Spain, like Napoleon of France, was anxious that Pius IX. should, through

a representative, stand godfather to her son, who afterwards became

Alphonso XII. Other princes sought the like consideration, and among the

rest, Victor Emmanuel, whose daughter, the Princess Pia, thus became the

godchild of Pius the Pope. This princess is now the Queen of Portugal.

(M57) Another bond of friendship with the world’s Powers was secured,

apparently, by the conclusion of a Concordat with the great Austrian

Empire. The negotiations which led to this Concordat had lasted several

years. It was abundantly liberal in the true acceptation of this term.

Nevertheless, it awakened the hatred and contempt of the professed

liberals, who enjoy this appellation, one would say, simply because they

are not liberal, just as in Latin a grove is called by a word expressive

of light, because it is not light (_lucus a non lucendo_). How can they be

called truly liberal, who have no liberality for any but themselves, who

know no other liberty than that which enables them to tyrannize over the

church, and trample under foot her most sacred and beneficial

institutions? The Concordat with Austria provides that the Catholic,

Apostolic and Roman religion shall be preserved in its integrity

throughout the whole extent of the Austrian monarchy, together with all

the rights and prerogatives which it ought to enjoy in virtue of the order

which God has established and the canon law.

The Roman Pontiff having, by divine right, in the whole church the primacy

of honor and jurisdiction, mutual communication, as regards all spiritual

things, and the ecclesiastical relations of the bishops, the clergy and

the people with the Holy See, shall not be subject to the necessity of

obtaining the royal _placet_, but shall be wholly free.

In a consistorial allocution of 5th November, 1855, Pius IX. gave

expression to the joy which it afforded him to have obtained, after so

much tedious negotiation, such happy results. The following year, on the

17th of March, he addressed a brief to the bishops of the Austrian Empire,

exhorting them to avail themselves of the spiritual independence which

they had once more won, in order to guard their dioceses against the

ravages of rationalism and indifference.

(M58) Meanwhile, new difficulties arose in Spain and Spanish America. The

government of Isabella II., regretting the good to which it had so

recently been a party, commenced a new war against the church.

Notwithstanding the Concordat, it exposed for sale such ecclesiastical

property as was not yet sold, forbade religious communities of women to

receive novices, and forcibly removed several bishops from their dioceses.

The excesses were such that Pius IX. was obliged to recall his

representative from Madrid. There were similar persecutions in the South

American Republics and in Mexico. The congress of Mexico forbade monastic

vows, banished the Archbishop of Mexico, and imprisoned the Bishop of

Michoacan. Germany, at the same time, was not without its troubles. A

learned theologian of the diocese of Cologne, Dr. Anthony Gunther, had

allowed himself to drift from the sure ways of tradition, imperceptibly

gliding into rationalism, and confounding reason and faith. His ideas had

partisans in several countries of Germany. The vigilant eye of Pius IX.

discovered in them germs of heresy, which it was important to check before

they attained development. Gunther, on being condemned, accepted humbly

the judgment of the Holy See. But there was a long contest with some of

his partisans who were less pious than himself.

(M59) The record of Pius the Ninth’s progress through his States, in 1857,

is alone a sufficient reply to the calumnies of those enemies who never

ceased to assert that ever since his return to Rome he had pursued a

retrograde policy. Reform was always an object of his solicitude. It was

with a view to improve the condition of his people that he undertook, when

almost a septuagenarian, a four months’ journey through the States of the

Church. He travelled slowly, and sometimes on foot, in order the better to

observe and ascertain the state of the provinces. All could approach him

and address him freely. He visited churches, hospitals and workshops. He

examined the works of the ports and the public ways. Many addresses and

petitions were presented. Far, however, from asking the abolition of

priestly rule, the petitioners prayed for a return to the former state of

things, when cardinals and prelates only were set over the provinces. The

progress of the Holy Father was a series of joyous ovations from the time

that he left Rome—4th May—till his return on the 5th September. His

journey was at first in the direction of Ancona, Ravenna and Bologna. He

returned by way of Florence and Modena. His progress would have been

crowned with success if it had only served to show the loyalty and

devotedness of his people. But it was attended with still greater results.

The Holy Father bestowed much time at every place in seeking, personally

and through his ministers, information which became the basis of reform

and improvement. Thus, as is known by the authentic accounts which have

been published, many localities derived very material benefit from the

Papal visit. The port of Pesaro was to be almost entirely reconstructed,

the Holy Father bestowing $80,000 from his own resources. The port of

Sinigaglia was also considerably improved, and a new sanitary office

built. The cities of Ancona and Civita Vecchia were to be enlarged. At

Bologna the High street was widened and beautified; the fine façade of the

cathedral was to be completed, the Pope contributing $5,000 for fifteen

years. At Perugia new prisons were to be constructed, and the condition of

the prisoners was to be in every way improved; a liberal annual

contribution was given towards preserving the splendid native collections

of art. Ravenna, although long neglected and in decay, was not forgotten.

Pius IX. wished to revive, as far as possible, the ancient commercial

prosperity of this city, and promised $4,000 annually for ten years

towards improving the port. At Ferrara many improvements were ordered, and

$9,000 contributed for the completing of the Pamfilio canal. The Holy

Father also appointed a commission of engineers, in order to devise a plan

by which the river Reno should be turned into the Po, and an extensive

tract of fertile land thus saved from periodical inundations. Funds were

provided for the relief of poor sailors. Liberal grants were allotted for

artesian wells, where required, and for bridges and public roads.

Especially were large allowances devoted for the improvement of the

highways at Pesaro, Macerata, Imola, Camerino, &c. Telegraphic

communication was widely established. Prisons, hospitals and schools were

special objects of the Holy Father’s care. It was the duty of Monsignor de

Merode, who accompanied the Pope, on arriving in any city or town, to

visit the prison, enquire into everything connected with it, and report

accordingly. Monsignor Talbot had commission to look to the state of

charitable, industrial and educational institutions, in all of which he

aided in promoting valuable reforms.

It is impossible to consider, without emotion, the reception which greeted

the Holy Father in his former diocese of Spoleto. At every step proof upon

proof was given of reverence and affection, which time had not diminished.

Etiquette and state ceremony were laid aside. The youthful and the aged

alike would see their good shepherd, and he was anxious to salute his

people, and converse with them all. Many a face, familiar to him of old,

was recognized with pleasure, and even names were not forgotten.

As has been seen, the days of the Holy Father’s journey were not all spent

in pleasurable greetings or official receptions. He never forgot or

neglected the work of reform and improvement. Nor were such care and labor

new to him. It had often been said that the Popes were hostile to all

modern improvements. Why did they not favor railways? Why did they not

drain the Pontine Marshes, and cause the _Campagna_ to be cultivated? Let

the labors of Pius IX. reply. A railway through the States of the Church

was one of his favorite ideas, and he beheld it realized. It must have

afforded him no ordinary satisfaction to see the railway which his

princely care had provided now winding along the valley of the Tiber, now

climbing the heights and stretching its arms across the Apennines,

reaching down to the seaboard at Ancona, now passing beyond the limits of

the Papal territory, and extending away to the Tuscan capital.

The uneducated or half-educated traveller, who surveys the uncultivated

and malarious plains around the city of the Popes, at once discovers, in

this desolation which prevails, an argument against priestly rule. With a

little more information, however, he would see the ruins and the vestiges

of a mighty empire, the works of which, like its conquests, were the

wonder of the world. How such works came to be so successfully executed is

easily understood, when it is remembered that heathen Rome commanded the

wealth, the intellect, and the strong arms of many subject nations. The

Popes, on the other hand, though they often tried, as did Pius IX. among

the rest, to cultivate the Campagna and drain the Pontine Marshes, had so

little means at their disposal, that they could never accomplish anything

important. Among other difficulties that the Roman Pontiffs had to contend

with, was that of obtaining an outlet towards the sea, whilst ancient Rome

commanded all the seas and lands of the known world. Surely it does not

require a Solomon to understand that without access to the Mediterranean,

it is physically impossible to drain and cultivate such low-lying lands as

the Pontine Marshes.

At Perugia the Holy Father received the kindly visit of the Archduke

Charles, who came, on the part of his father Leopold, to compliment the

Sovereign Pontiff. Archduke Maximilian, of Austria, who, at the time,

little thought of a Mexican Empire, came to salute the Pope at Pesaro.

Neither he nor Pius IX. had been, as yet, betrayed and abandoned by

Napoleon III. The Grand Duke of Tuscany and all his family, together with

the Dukes of Parma and Modena, came to pay their homage at Bologna. The

Holy Father accepted their pressing invitation to visit Tuscany and

Modena, the sovereigns showing publicly, in presence of their people, such

reverence and devotedness as recalled the faith and loyalty of the Middle

Ages. The Pope himself bears witness to the truly noble and chivalrous

conduct of these provinces. “He introduced us himself into Florence,” says

Pius IX., in speaking of the Grand Duke Leopold, “walking by our side, and

accompanied us to every Tuscan city which we visited. All the archbishops

and bishops of his States, all the clergy, the corporate bodies, the

magistrates and the nobles showed their delight by testifying their

devotion to us in a thousand ways. Not only at Florence, but wherever we

went in Tuscany, the people from town and country, far and near, came

forth to greet us, acclaiming the Chief Pontiff of the church with such

ardent affection, showing such an intense desire to see him, to do him

reverence, to receive his benediction, that our fatherly heart was moved

to its inmost depths.” On the Holy Father’s return to Rome there was high

jubilee among all classes of the people a fact which the traducers of Pius

IX. would do well to note, as it proves beyond a doubt how idle and

ill-founded was all their clamor, to the effect that in the holy city his

popularity had departed.

(M60) A case in itself comparatively unimportant now became a _cause

celebre_, and agitated all Europe. One Mortara, a Jew of Bologna, had, in

violation of the laws of the country, taken into his service a Christian

maid. Meantime, one of his children, a boy about seven years of age,

became dangerously ill. The Christian girl, unadvisedly, and also in

opposition to the law, baptized him. Her act could not be undone, and the

law required that every baptized person should be educated as a Christian.

Pius IX. refused to interfere with the action of this law. Hence the

torrents of abuse that were poured upon him by the infidel _liberal_ press

of Europe, as well as by the ultra-Protestant organs of England. He had

ignored liberty of conscience, abused his authority, &c. Now, let us

suppose that he had acted otherwise, and prevented the execution of a

well-known law, what would have been the result? He would have been

denounced as a despot, whose arbitrary decision was the only law. But

might not he, who was so great a reformer, have contrived to cause the law

to be altered? Such alteration could not have affected the Mortara case. A

change, besides, would have been quite unnecessary, as it was not probable

that after such a storm, and the lesson which it taught, either Jews or

Christians would expose themselves to the consequences of a violation of

their country’s laws. And were not those laws a sufficient protection to

the Jewish people?

(M61) From the first days of his Pontificate, America engaged the

solicitude of Pius IX. So rapid was the growth of the church on that

continent that it became necessary to give bishops to several countries

where the Catholic faith had been scarcely known. So early as 1846 Oregon

was constituted an Archiepiscopal See. In 1850 Episcopal Sees were erected

at Monterey and Santa Fe, in the Spanish American territory, which was

recently annexed to the United States, and in Savannah, Wheeling, St. Paul

and Nesqualy. The Indian territory became a Vicariate Apostolic, under the

jurisdiction of a bishop. Three years afterwards six more sees were

established—San Francisco, Brooklyn, Burlington, Covington, Erie and

Natchitoches. Later still, 1857, Pius IX. gave bishops to Illinois; Fort

Wayne, in Indiana; and Marquette, in Michigan. This last city derived its

name from the celebrated missionary who first explored the river

Mississippi. It was now more important than ever, having become a centre

of Catholic life and action.

(M62) In 1852, Pius IX. beatified John de Britto, a martyr in India, John

Grande and the renowned Paul of the Cross, who founded the zealous and

austere order of Passionists. In 1853, the like honor was conferred on the

pious French shepherdess, Germaine Cousin, and the Jesuit father, Andrew

Bobola, who was martyred by the Cossacks. In 1861, John Leonardi was

beatified.

(M63) It is now time to record events of a less pleasing nature. In 1853,

several attempts had been made on the life of the Emperor Napoleon III. In

1855, Pianori made a similar attempt. In 1858, Count Felix Orsini almost

succeeded in assassinating him. This Orsini was an accomplice of Louis

Napoleon in raising an insurrection in Romagna in 1831. He was condemned

for conspiracy in 1845, and was amnestied by Pius IX. In 1849, he was a

member of the Roman Constituent Assembly. In his political testament,

dated at the Mazas prison, and read before the jury by Jules Favre, his

counsel, he coolly declared that the object of his crime was to remind the

Emperor of his former secret engagements in favor of Italian independence;

that he was only one of the conspirators who had charge so to remind him;

and that, although he had failed in his aim, others would come after him

who would not fail. “Sire,” he wrote, “let your Majesty remember—so long

as Italy is not independent, the tranquillity of Europe and that of your

Majesty are mere chimeras.” French authors remark that it is painful to

enquire what measure of influence these threats may have exercised on the

subsequent resolutions of the man to whom they were addressed, and still

more painful to be compelled to recognize the unworthy motive of fear at

the first link of the fatal chain which inevitably led to Sedan, where

this same man had not the courage to seek a manly death. God only could

see his secret mind. But it is impossible not to observe very sad

coincidences. Immediately after Orsini had penned his memorable testament,

the imperial policy was completely changed. The declaration of Orsini is

as the dividing point between the two portions of the Emperor’s reign, the

former openly, reasonably conservative and glorious, the latter sometimes

decidedly revolutionary, sometimes vacillating, contradictory, or

unwillingly conservative, and finally terminated by a catastrophe

unexampled in the annals of France.

(M64) All who take an interest in public affairs cannot fail to remember

the startling words which the Emperor Napoleon III. addressed to the

representative of Austria, on occasion of the diplomatic reception at the

Tuileries, on New Year’s day, 1859: “I regret that my relations with your

government are not so good as in the past.” This language of Napoleon

astonished all Europe. It was as a sudden clap of thunder on the calmest

summer day. Ten days later, Victor Emmanuel gave the interpretation of

this mysterious speech, at the opening of the Piedmontese parliament, when

he declared that “he was not unmoved by the cries of pain which reached

him from so many parts of Italy.” Finally, the marriage of Prince

Napoleon, the Emperor’s cousin, with a daughter of the Sardinian King,

removed all doubt. France was made to adopt, without being consulted, the

enmities and the ambition of the Cabinet of Turin.

On the 4th of February appeared a pamphlet which increased the alarm of

the friends of peace and order. It may not have been written by Napoleon,

but it was according to his ideas and dictation. Its title was, “_Napoleon

III. and Italy_;” and it set forth a programme of the political

reconstituting of Italy. It exonerated Pius IX. of all the things laid to

his charge by the revolution, but only in order to lay them at the door of

the Papacy itself. “The Pope,” it alleged, “being placed between two

classes of duty, is constrained to sacrifice the one to the other. He

necessarily makes political give way to spiritual duty. This is

condemnation, not of Pius IX. but of the system; not of the man, but of

the situation; since the latter imposes on the former the formidable

alternative of immolating the Prince to the Pontiff, or the Pontiff to the

Prince.” The pamphlet further taught: “The absolutely clerical character

of the Roman government is opposed to common sense, and is a fertile

source of discontent. The canon law does not suffice for the protection

and development of modern society.” The document concluded by proposing

the secularization of the Roman government, and the establishment of an

Italian confederation, of which the Pope should have the honorary

presidency, whilst Piedmont should have the real control. The pamphlet

urged, in support of its arguments, the “abnormal position” of the Papacy,

which was obliged, in order to sustain itself, to rely on foreign armies

of occupation. Such a reproach on the part of one of those who lent succor

to the Pope was anything but generous. Pius IX. hastened to remove this

cause of complaint. On the 27th of February Cardinal Antonelli notified

France and Austria that the Holy Father was grateful to them for their

good services, but that he thought he could himself maintain order in his

States, and so would beg of them to withdraw their troops. This would not

have suited Piedmont, which was interested in maintaining the grievance,

as well as in rendering it possible to involve the Roman States in the war

which was so rapidly approaching. The troops were not removed. Pius IX.

was too clear-sighted not to foresee what was so soon to happen. In an

Encyclical of 27th April, he asked prayers for peace of all the

patriarchs, primates, archbishops and bishops. “_Pax vobis! pax vobis!_”

he painfully repeated. But it was already too late. The young and rash

Emperor of Austria, driven to extremity, thought himself sufficiently

strong to contend at once against France and the revolution. He summoned

Piedmont to disband such of her regiments as were composed of Lombards and

Venetians, who were Austrian subjects. As this was refused, he declared

war. He fell into a second error. He assumed the offensive tardily, and

did not push forward rapidly to the point where the French army must

concentrate, before its concentration could be accomplished. He made a

third and more serious mistake, which proved ruinous. He withdrew from the

war after his first defeats when his army was beat, indeed, but neither

broken nor disorganized, when he still held the unconquered quadrilateral,

and when Prussia and Germany were arming to support him. In 1866 he was

equally imprudent in the war against Prussia, when a continuation of the

contest would have obliged France, whether willingly or otherwise, to

intervene, and would probably have saved both Austria and France.

Meanwhile, Napoleon felt that it was necessary to reassure the Catholics

of France. “We do not go to Italy,” said he, boldly, but untruly, in his

proclamation of 3rd May, “in order to encourage disorder, nor to shake the

power of the Holy Father, whom we have replaced on his throne, but in

order to liberate him from the foreign pressure which weighs upon the

whole peninsula, and assist in founding order on legitimate interests that

will be satisfied.” M. Rouland, the Minister of Public Worship, wrote to

the bishops, in order to inspire them with confidence as to the

consequences of the contest. “The Emperor,” he said, hypocritically, “has

weighed the matter in the presence of God, and his well-known wisdom,

energy and loyalty will not be wanting, either to religion or the country.

The prince who has given to religion so many proofs of deference and

attachment, who, after the evil days of 1848, brought back the Holy Father

to the Vatican, is the firmest support of Catholic unity, and he desires

that the Chief of the Church shall be respected in all his rights as a

temporal sovereign. The prince, who saved France from the invasion of the

democracy, cannot accept either its doctrines or its domination in Italy.”

These declarations, which promised so much, were joyfully accepted by the

Catholics. Events, however, soon made it appear how hollow they were. The

grand conspiracy, whilst it amused the friends of order and legality with

fine words and lying protestations, acted in such a way as to favor the

revolution and meet all its wishes. On the 27th of April, the Grand Duke

of Tuscany, uncle of Victor Emmanuel, was overthrown in consequence of

intrigues and plots at the house of Signor Buoncompagni, ambassador of the

Piedmontese King, a fact to which Mr. Scarlett, the British

representative, bears witness in an official despatch. The same blow was

struck, and with the like success, against the excellent and popular

Duchess of Parma. But this princess was immediately recalled by the

people, who had been taken by surprise, and remained until Piedmont took

military possession of the Duchies, which it never gave up. Prince

Napoleon, who commanded the 5th French Army Corps, looking out for the

enemy by a devious route, in the direction of Romagna, reached the

battle-field of Solferino too late to take part in the fight, but quite in

time to make it available to the revolution. The Austrian troops who

occupied Bologna, being threatened by the movement, made haste to recross

the Po, without waiting to be replaced by a Pontifical garrison, and

without even advising the Holy See. M. de Cavour’s emissaries immediately

availed themselves of so good an opportunity, took possession of the city,

where there was not a soldier left, and offered its government to Victor

Emmanuel.

They were preparing at Rome to celebrate the thirteenth anniversary of the

coronation of Pius IX., when the news of these sad events reached the

city. The addresses of the Pope, on this occasion, therefore, were

necessarily full of melancholy feeling. “In whatever direction I look,”

said he, in his reply to the cardinals, “I behold only subjects of sorrow;

but, ‘_væ homini illi per quem scandalum venit!_’ Woe to that man by whom

scandal cometh! For my part, personally, I am not shaken; I place my trust

in God.” Three days later, the 18th June, he announced, in a consistorial

allocution, that Cardinal Antonelli had been commissioned to protest at

the courts of all the Powers against the events in Romagna. But his

position as sovereign required of him something more than words, and he

did not shrink from any of his duties. Perugia had followed the example of

Bologna, and to the former city he despatched troops, who retook it

without any difficulty. In the contest some twelve men were either killed

or wounded, and the clamors of the revolutionary press rung throughout

Europe, denouncing the massacres and the “sack of Perugia.”

Letter of the Honorable Mrs. Ross from Perugia, _vide Weekly

Register_, February 11th, 1860.

THE TRUTH ABOUT PERUGIA.—We have received from Rome an original

English copy of the letter of Mrs. Ross of Bladensburgh, written

from Perugia on the 23rd of June last, and an Italian version of

which we announced last week to our readers as having appeared in

the _Giornale di Roma_ of 23rd ult., and which is referred to in

our special correspondence from Rome this week. We really never

expected that our former Perugino antagonist, Mr. Perkins, of

Boston, should have turned out to be such a very _unfortunate_

man. We have now a fair sample of the authorities consulted by

travellers of his class to procure evidence against the Pontifical

government.

-------------------------------------

Extract from a letter written by the Hon. Mrs. Ross of

Bladensburgh, to her husband, from Villa Monti, at Perugia, dated

Perugia, June 21st, 1859.

“To David Ross, of Bladensburgh, Hautes Pyrenees, France.

“I wrote to you last Wednesday, 15th inst., to announce a

revolution which occurred here on the previous day; now I write to

relieve your mind of anxiety in case an exaggerated account of

what has occurred here be given in the public papers. I have to

tell you of the re-entrance of the Papal troops, which took place

yesterday after a stubborn resistance of four hours on the part of

the revolutionists.

“When the revolt at Perugia was known at Rome, orders were given

to a body of Swiss troops to replace the little garrison which had

been driven out. The revolutionary junta was well informed of what

had been decided on at Rome, and immediately prepared to oppose

the re-establishment of social order in the town. Victor Emmanuel,

to whom they had offered the town, returned no official answer,

but, instead, reports were industriously circulated among the

citizens of sympathy and support from Piedmont. An honest refusal

on the part of Victor Emmanuel, or an open acceptance, would have

prevented subsequent events, which his calculated silence brought

about. On Saturday last, the 18th inst., we heard that the Pope’s

troops were close to —— and on Sunday that they had actually

arrived there. In the —— Buoncompagni sent from Tuscany, I am

told, 300 muskets in aid and wagons were despatched to Arezzo for

arms and ammunition; barricades were commenced. The monks were

turned out of their convent at St. Peter’s Gate (one of them came

down to us); and 500 armed men instead were put in to defend the

gate and first barricade. After two o’clock p.m., the gates were

closed, and no one could go in or out of the town without an

order. It was then I wrote a note to Mr. Perkins, warning and

requesting him and his family to accept a shake-down with us; and

with difficulty I got the note conveyed up to town by a woman who

happened to have a pass. Nothing could induce any of the peasants

about us to go near the town, as the revolutionary party were

making forced levies of the youth of the place, and arming them to

resist the coming troops. Next morning (Monday the 20th) a body of

shepherds coming up from the place, told us that they had just

seen the Swiss troops at Santa Maria degli Angioli, where they

stopped and had mass,(3) having heard that the citizens

contemplated resistance. About ten o’clock that same morning I got

Mr. Perkins’ answer to my note; it was to this effect—that he had

gone to the president (of the Junta), who assured him that the

Swiss had not yet even reached —— and that certainly they would

not arrive before the next day at sunset. And the inn-keeper (the

notorious Storti), he added, said that they were not coming here

at all, but going to Ancona! I cannot imagine how he could trust

such people, who were all implicated in the business. His

messenger, who was one of the servants of the hotel, said, as he

gave the note, ‘Don’t delay me, or I shall not be in time to kill

my three or four Swiss,’ showing how well informed and prepared

the hotel was. I should have written again to the poor Perkins’ to

undeceive them; but it was too late, for almost immediately the

columns of the Swiss appeared in the plain below, which you know

we see from our villa, and the president (revolutionary Junta) and

other heads of the rebellion had their carriages and horses ready

waiting. They fled at the first gun, leaving the people to act for

themselves after having inflamed, deceived and armed them, and

gathered into the town all the _canaille_ they could get from the

neighboring country. From the moment the troops appeared, all the

peasants belonging to the villa flocked around us. Anxiety was

depicted on every face. The countenance of one old man in

particular was very striking—‘bad times,’ he murmured. ‘We have

fallen on evil days—respect and awe are gone, and the people are

blinded.’ The parish priest was also with us, and the monk I

mentioned before. We watched with great anxiety the slow ascent of

the troops up the long five miles to the city gate. There the

colonel and his men halted, and he parleyed with the people. We

could see him stop and address them, and then we saw a volley

fired down on them by the armed men in the convent windows. The

first fire was from the people on the troops. We could see all

from our villa windows like a scene on the stage; while the

distance was sufficient to veil the horrors of war. Then we saw

some troops separate from the main body and advance to the foot of

the wall, and in the twinkling of an eye they scaled it, amid a

hot fire from the insurgents, whom we heard shouting out,

‘Coraggio! coraggio!’ from behind the walls. Then we saw one

soldier rush up and tear down the revolutionary flag, and carry it

in triumph back to the main body of the troops, and then we saw

the Pontifical flag float where the revolutionary one had been. In

the meantime the rest of the troops had planted their cannon

opposite to the city gate. Boom! boom! they went at the

barricades, and in an hour after the firing of the first gun, they

had driven out the 500 armed men from the convent of St. Peter’s,

and entered the first enclosure of the town. We then saw no more,

but sat all that afternoon in the window, listening to the

incessant firing in deep anxiety. As the soldiers fought their way

up to their barracks, and as the report of the arms became more

and more distant, we could judge pretty well of the advance of the

troops, knowing as we did the chief points of resistance within.

The first gun fired was at three o’clock p.m. precisely, and at

seven p.m. all was silent again; the soldiers had reached their

barracks. I hear that —— have fled out towards Arezzo; all the

_canaille_ of the villages of the place were enlisted to defend

the city, and it was the talk of the country that had the Swiss

been beaten, the city was to have been pillaged by that armed mob.

They say that had they not had promises of succor from Victor

Emmanuel (the ‘Re Galantuomo’), and of encouragement from Princess

Valentini (nee Buonaparte, who resides here), they would not have

resisted as they did: thus were they deceived! There is more in it

all than one sees at first; and clearly it was an affair got up to

make out a case against the Pope. Piedmontese money was circulated

there just before the revolution. N—— got it in change in the

shops.

“June 22.—P.S.—Our servant has been to town to-day; he brings me a

letter from the Perkins’, and such news as is the general talk of

the _cafes_. Our poor friends in the Hotel de France (Locanda

Storti) suffered much. Deceived to the last, they had not even

been told of the actual arrival of the troops, and had just sat

quietly to dinner when the roar of the guns startled them. They

strove to go to another hotel, but alas! the gates of their inn

were fastened; they could not stir. The letter I got from them

said that the troops were _irritated on account of the firing from

the roof_. We knew beforehand how it would be _there_; and in fact

they did shoot an officer and two men while passing the door. It

was on this that the soldiers, infuriated, rushed and assailed the

house.... I hear every one blames the imprudence of these people.

They could not afford to be hostile; for the hotel, if you

remember, commands the street from the base up the hill. No

troops, therefore, could risk going up that hill with a hostile

house in that position ready to take them in the rear. The escape

of the poor Perkins’ is a perfect miracle; they, I hear, lost

everything. The innkeeper, waiter and stableman, they say, were

killed in the fray. The number of deaths among the Swiss were 10,

and 33 of the Perugians. Several prisoners were made. I went up on

this same afternoon (June 22) with the two little boys to see the

colonel of the regiment. The town is wonderfully little injured,

only broken windows ... after a mob riot, with the exception of a

few houses in the suburbs, between the outer and inner gates. One

was burned by the accident of the falling of a bomb-shell. The

other was cannonaded as being a resort of the rebels. There is

great talk of how the heads of the revolution scampered off,

betraying thus the tools and dupes of their faction.”

-------------------------------------

Extract from another letter to David Ross of Bladensburgh:

“There is great terror here among all the country people, who

dread, sooner or later, vengeance being taken upon them by the

revolutionary party, because they would have nothing to say to the

movement.”

(M65) It is well known how rapidly events succeeded one another, when

Napoleon’s friendly relations with Austria came to an end. On May 3rd he

declared war. On the 12th he arrived at Genoa, commanded in person, on the

4th of June, at the battle of Magenta, where, but for the superior

generalship of Marshal McMahon, he would have lost his life, together with

his army, and on the 24th of the same month won the great victory of

Solferino. He now gave out that he had enough of glory and would fight no

more, whilst in reality he was constrained to yield to powerful pressure

from without. Prussia, foreseeing that, if Austria experienced a few more

defeats, she herself would suffer, deemed it wise to interfere. Prussia

had, indeed, concerted matters beforehand with the Emperor of the French,

and had undertaken to isolate Austria, her hereditary rival in Germany.

But at the first rumor of the Franco-Piedmontese aggression, the German

States were moved. The Diet of Francfort insisted that the confederate

nations should proceed to assist the Emperor, who was President of the

German Confederation. It fell to Prussia to head the movement. But, as may

be conceived, she was not hearty in the cause. Her statesmen hesitated,

argued, equivocated, and made a show of preparing, but slowly, for war.

Meanwhile, the news of the successive defeats of Austria roused still more

the patriotism of the Germans. The Prussian monarch, finding that he was

on the point of being overwhelmed, addressed to his Imperial accomplice,

the day after the battle of Solferino, a most pressing telegram, informing

him that he must make peace, cost what it would. Napoleon, it need hardly

be said, obeyed, and so _the peace of Villafranca was concluded_. By this

treaty was established an Italian Confederation, under the honorary

presidency of the Pope, Lombardy given to Piedmont, Venice left to

Austria, the rights of the Grand Duke of Tuscany and the other sovereigns,

who were for the moment dispossessed, expressly reserved. Thus appeared to

end the intrigues of the revolution. Pius IX. promptly invited the

faithful of Rome to join with him in offering thanksgiving to God. His

letter thus concludes: “What do we pray for? That all the enemies of

Christ, of His Church and of the Holy See, may be converted and live.”

(M66) So clear, apparently, was now the political atmosphere, that men

could not avoid accusing themselves of having judged rashly the mighty

conqueror, who, by a word, could restore serenity as easily as he had

disturbed it. It was not yet known by what power he was restrained. In

compliance with the requirements of the treaty of Villafranca, Piedmont,

indeed, withdrew her commissioners from Central Italy. The public,

however, soon learned, to its great astonishment, what, at first, it could

not believe, that provisional governments took the place of the

Piedmontese Commissioners, and that Baron Ricasoli, at Florence, Signor

Farini, at Modena and Parma, and Cipriani, at Bologna, all agents of Count

de Cavour and the revolution, dismissed everywhere such officials as were

suspected of looking seriously to the return of the legitimate sovereigns,

and had recourse to popular suffrage. This, it is no exaggeration to say,

was a mere mockery. The voting directed, expurgated by these parties,

never extended to the landward districts, but, confined entirely to the

towns, was necessarily calculated to produce the result at which they

aimed—a _plebiscitum_ in favor of annexation to Piedmont. In Romagna, for

instance, where there were about two hundred thousand electors, only

18,000 were registered, and of these only one-third presented their votes.

By such means was a national assembly constituted. This assembly met at

Bologna on the 6th of September, and at its first sitting voted the

abolition of the Pontifical government, and invited Victor Emmanuel. This

potentate dared not, at first, to accept, but appointed Signor

Buoncompagni, governor-general of the league of Central Italy. It did not

appear from the state of the polls, if, indeed, the polling of votes was

even made a fashion of, that the people of the Papal States were at all

anxious to do away with the government under which they and their

forefathers had enjoyed so many blessings, together with the surpassing

honor of possessing, as their capital, the metropolis of the Christian

world. They were too happy in being ruled over by the elective monarch

whom they themselves had chosen, to desire, in preference to him, the mere

shadow of a king—the satrap of an Imperial despot. It was not they who, in

a pretended _patriotic_ endeavor to shake off the Pontifical yoke, raised

the standard of rebellion in so many cities and provinces of the Papal

States. This was wholly the work of foreigners. A Bonaparte, attended by a

numerous and well-disciplined army, invaded Italy. His arms were, to a

certain extent, successful; and so rebellion was encouraged. Another

Bonaparte excited to revolt the city of Perugia. The disturbance was

speedily settled by a handful of troops whom the sovereign had despatched

from Rome, to the great satisfaction of the citizens of Perugia. In other

cities, by the like instrumentalities, were like movements occasioned.

They were invariably suppressed by the loyal and devoted people. So much

was this the case that the Pontifical government warmly thanked the mayors

and municipalities of no fewer than seven or eight cities for their good

services in putting down the nascent revolution. At Bologna, the capital

of the Romagnol or Æmilian provinces, a cousin of the Bonapartes, the

Marquis Pepoli, whom the benevolence of Pius IX. had restored to his

country, stirred up rebellion, and caused the Pontifical government to

give place to revolutionary misrule. The abettors of Pepoli, in this most

base and ungrateful proceeding, were his associates of the secret

societies; others who were foreigners at Bologna, and a few malcontents of

that city itself. But all these were far from being the citizens of

Bologna, far from being the people of the Bolognese provinces. Whilst such

things were done, where was the peace of Villafranca? It had become, or

rather, never was anything better than, waste paper. The head of the

Bonapartes was the offender, and he contrived to make France the partner

of his guilt.

“It is France,” the illustrious M. de Montalembert affirms, “that has

allowed the temporal power of the Pope to be shaken. This is the fact,

which blind men only can deny. France is not engaged alone in this path,

but her overwhelming ascendancy places her at the head of the movement,

and throws the great and supreme responsibility of it upon her. We know

all the legitimate and crushing reproaches that are due to England and

Piedmont; but if France had so willed it, Piedmont would not have dared to

undertake anything against the Holy See, and England would have been

condemned to her impotent hatred.... The Congress of Paris, in 1856—having

solemnly declared, ‘that none of the contracting powers had the right of

interfering, either collectively or individually, between a sovereign and

his subjects’(4)—after having proclaimed the principle of the absolute

independence of sovereigns in favor of the Turkish Sultan against his

Christian subjects, thought itself justified by its protocol of April 8th,

and in the absence of any representative of the august accused, in

proclaiming that the situation of the Papal States was _abnormal_ and

_irregular_. This accusation, developed, aggravated and exaggerated in

parliament and elsewhere, by Lord Palmerston and Count Cavour, was,

nevertheless, formally put forward under the presidency and on the

_initiative_ of the French minister for foreign affairs. Consequently,

France must be held accountable for it to the Church, and to the rest of

Europe.” The war which “the skilful but guilty perseverance of Piedmontese

policy” succeeded in occasioning between France and Austria facilitated

not a little the work of revolution in the States of the Church. In order

to dispel the fears that prevailed, the following words were addressed to

the Bishops of France by the minister of the Emperor: “The prince who

restored the Holy Father to his throne in the Vatican wills that the Head

of the Church should be respected in all his rights as a temporal

sovereign.” A little later, the Emperor of the French, elated with his

military success, issued a proclamation which renewed the apprehensions

that had been so happily allayed. “Italians!—Providence sometimes favors

nations and individuals by giving them the opportunity of suddenly

springing into their full growth. Avail yourselves, then, of the fortune

that is offered you! Your desire of independence, so long expressed, so

often deceived, will be realized, if you show yourselves worthy of it.

Unite then for one sole object, the liberation of your country. Fly to the

standards of King Victor Emmanuel, who has already so nobly shown you the

way to honor. Remember that without discipline there can be no army, and

animated with the sacred fire of patriotism, be soldiers only to-day, and

you will be to-morrow free citizens of a great country.”

“The Romagnese,” continues Montalembert, “took the speaker at his word.

Four days after the appearance of this proclamation, they rose against the

Papal authority, created a provisional government, convoked a sovereign

assembly, voted the deposition of the Pope, and the annexation to

Piedmont. Finally, seeing their audacity remained unpunished, they

organized an armed league, officered by Piedmontese, and commanded by

Garibaldi—that Garibaldi, who, having been vanquished by French troops ten

years ago, now avails himself of our recent hard-won victories, to boast

that he will ‘soon make an end of clerical despotism.’ ”

Three months after the revolution had been established in the Romagna, M.

de Montalembert wrote: “The revolution, triumphant, is still asking Europe

to sanction its work. France has to impute to herself all the scandals and

all the calamities that will follow. Great nations are responsible not

only for what they do, but for what they permit to be done under the

shadow of their flag, and by the incitement of their influence. The war

which France waged in Italy has cost the Pope the loss of the third part

of his dominions, and the irreparable weakening of his hold on what

remains. The eldest daughter of the church will remain accountable for it

before contemporaries, before history, before Europe, and before God. She

will not be allowed to wipe her mouth like the adultress in Scripture,

_quæ tergens os suum dicit, non sum operata malum_.”

Another power which was, in the full sense of the term, _foreign_ in the

Roman States, still more directly aided the revolution. This power was the

army of Garibaldi. It will be seen, when it is considered what troops this

army was composed of, that it was wholly alien in the States of the

Church. In this motley corps there were:

6,750 Piedmontese volunteers.

3,240 Lombards volunteers

1,200 Venetians.

2,150 Neapolitans and Sicilians.

500 Romans.

1,200 Hungarians.

200 French.

30 English.

150 Maltese and Ionians.

260 Greeks.

450 Poles.

370 Swiss.

160 Spaniards, Belgians and Americans.

800 Austrian deserters and liberated convicts.

Could such an army as this be held to be a representation of the people of

the Papal States? One-third of it was supplied by two hostile nations, one

of which, Piedmont, had actually, by the intrigues of its government and

in pursuance of a policy which an able statesman, a most candid writer and

an honorable man, Count Montalembert, has stigmatized as _criminal_,

caused the rebellion in Romagna, and has since earnestly labored to avail

itself of the state of things, by annexing Central Italy to the

territories of the Piedmontese King. It were superfluous to direct

attention to the numbers of foreigners from various states. It is,

however, deserving of remark that the whole population of the Papal

States, amounting to 3,000,000, should have shown its alleged sympathy

with the “cause of Italy,” by sending only 500 men to fight its battles.

They did not want courage, as was shown in 1848, when neither the

considerate advice and paternal remonstrances of the Holy Father, nor the

wise counsel of grave statesmen and learned cardinals, could moderate the

ardor of the Roman youth, believing, as they had been persuaded, that

patriotism and duty called them to follow the standard of King Charles

Albert. Then they took up arms, as they conceived, in the cause of Italian

liberty. But now that honorable cause was manifestly in abeyance; and they

would not leave their homes and endanger their lives for the phantom of

national independence offered them by the revolution.

The French were equally wary. They sympathized with Italy. They fought for

their Emperor. But they had no admiration for Piedmontese ambition, or

that of Murats, and Pepolis, and Bonapartes.

England was more cautious still. However much her demagogues may have

exerted their oratorical powers at home, they carefully avoided perilling

either life or limb in the cause of the revolution. A more numerous band

of fighting men of English origin, in Garibaldi’s ranks, would have shown

more sympathy with rebellion in some Italian States than the proposal made

by a right honorable member of the richest peerage in the world to raise a

penny subscription in order to supply the rebels with bayonets and

fire-arms. When we call to mind that this suggestion was made by that very

lordly peer who was once Governor-General of India, we have little

difficulty in understanding why his superiors, the members of the East

India Company, dismissed him from the high and responsible office with

which he had been entrusted.

It cannot be pretended that the army of Garibaldi was, in any degree, a

national representation. No nation or community can be fairly represented

by a number of its people, insignificantly small, unless, indeed, these

few individuals hold commission from their fellow-countrymen. We have not

read anywhere that the Garibaldian army was thus honored. Social status,

character and respectability, may, on occasions, give to individuals the

privilege of representing their country. But on these grounds the motley

troop of the revolutionary leader possessed no claim. They were men for

whom peace and order have no charms. The powerful corrective of military

discipline was applied to them in vain. Their insubordination was

notorious. To Garibaldi even it was intolerable. And this man, daring as

he was, withdrew from the command in disgust. He had scarcely retired when

many of his men deserted. These the people refused to recognize, and would

not afford them assistance on their journey. Some fifty of them arrived at

Placentia, after having been reduced to mendicancy before they could reach

their homes. The revolutionary governor, Doctor Fanti, issued an order of

the day, requiring that these men, on account of their insubordination and

bad conduct, should not be admitted anew into the army of the League. The

general-in-chief also published an order, under date of 26th November,

1859, absolutely forbidding to accept any person who had belonged to

Garibaldi’s force. An army so composed could, by no means, claim to

represent the highly refined, intellectual, and moral populations of

Italy. Far less did it afford any proof that the people of the Papal

States were anxious to forward the work of the revolution.

The inhabitants of Rome and the Roman States, far from showing any

inclination to side with the revolutionary party, were wont never to let

pass an opportunity of manifesting their satisfaction with the government

of the Pope. His Holiness walked abroad without guards. And although he

sought the most retired places, for the enjoyment of that pedestrian

exercise which his health required, numbers of the people often contrived

to throw themselves in his way, in order to testify to him their reverence

and affection, as well as to receive his paternal benediction. When taking

his walk, one day, on Monte Pincio, many thousands came around him,

declaring loudly their unfeigned loyalty. The following day, still greater

crowds repaired to the same place. But the Holy Father, with a view to be

more retired, had gone in another direction. It ought not to be forgotten,

that when returning, in the autumn of 1859, from his villa at Castel

Gandolpho, the road was thronged on both sides to the distance of four

miles from Rome with citizens who had no other object in view than to give

a cordial and loyal welcome to their Bishop and Prince. This was an

ovation—a triumph which the greatest conqueror might well have envied. It

has already been recorded that, on occasion of the progress which the Holy

Father made through his States, he was everywhere received with the most

lively demonstrations of enthusiastic loyalty, reverence and affection. On

the 18th of January, 1860, the municipal body, or, as it is called, “the

Senate,” of Rome, presented to the Sovereign Pontiff, as well in their own

name as on behalf of all the people, an address expressive of their filial

duty and loyal sentiments. On the following day, January 19th, one hundred

and thirty-four of the nobility of Rome, who are, in all, one hundred and

sixty, approached the person of the Pontiff in order to present an equally

loyal and dutiful address. The sentiments of this address will be best

conveyed in its own plain and energetic language—language which does honor

to the patricians of modern Rome:

“We, the undersigned, deeply grieved by the publication of various libels

which, emanating from the revolutionary press, tend to make the world

believe that the people subject to the authority of your Holiness are

wishing to shake off the yoke which, as it is reported, has become

insufferable, feel necessitated to show fidelity and loyalty to your

Holiness, and to make known to the rest of Europe, which, at the present

moment, doubts the sincerity of our words, the fidelity of our persons

towards your Holiness, by a manifestation of attachment and fidelity

towards your person, proceeding from our duty as Catholics, and from our

lawful submission as your subjects.

“It is not, however, our intention to vie with the miserable cunning of

your enemies—enemies of the faith—of that very faith which they profess to

venerate. But placed, as it is our fortune, by your side, and seeing the

malignity of those who attack you, and the disloyal character of their

attacks, we feel bound to gather ourselves at the foot of your twofold

throne, with vows for the integrity of your independent sovereignty; and

once more offering you our whole selves, too happy if this manifestation

of our fidelity may sweeten the bitterness with which your Holiness is

afflicted, and if you are pleased to accept our offerings. Thus may

Europe, deceived by so many perverse writings, be thoroughly convinced

that if the nobility have hitherto been restrained from the expression of

their desires by respect and the fear of throwing any obstacle in the way

of a happy solution, so anxiously desired, they have not the less retained

them, and expressed them as individuals; and that they, this day, unite to

declare them, heartily and sincerely pledging to them before all the world

their honor and their faith.

“Accept, Holy Father, Pontiff and King, this energetic protest and the

unlimited devotedness which the nobles of Rome offer in reverence to your

Sceptre, no less than to your Pastoral staff.”—(_In the Weekly Register of

January 28, 1860, from the Giornale di Roma._)

The like loyal and patriotic feeling was manifested throughout all the

cities and provinces of the Papal States. One of the most eminent of

liberal British statesmen, the Marquis of Normanby, bears witness to the

fact that very few of the citizens of Bologna could be compelled, even at

the point of the sword, to express adherence to the revolution. A portion

of the periodical press labored to keep such facts as these out of view.

But they would have required better evidence than they were ever able to

produce in order to convince reasonable and reflecting men that people,

blessed with so great a degree of material prosperity as the subjects of

the Pope and the other Princes of Italy, were anxious to see radical

changes introduced into the governments under which they were so favored.

That they were highly prosperous and but slightly taxed, many

distinguished travellers, members of both houses of the British

parliament, and others bear witness. None will question the evidence of

these facts which are known on the authority of such men as the Marquis of

Normanby and his Excellency the Earl of Carlisle. The Hon. Mr. Pope

Hennessey stated in the House of Commons: “That the national prosperity of

the States of the Church and of Austria had become greater, year after

year, than that of Sardinia (where a sort of revolutionary constitution

had been established), and that documents existed in the Foreign Office,

in the shape of reports from our own consuls, which proved it, with

respect to commercial interests in Sardinia. Mr. Erskine, our minister at

Turin, in a despatch of January 7, 1856, gave a very unfavorable view of

the manufacturing, mining and agricultural progress of Sardinia. But from

Venetia, Mr. Elliott gave a perfectly opposite view, showing that great

progress was being made there. The shipping trade of Sardinia with England

had declined 2,000 tons. But the British trade with Ancona had increased

21,000 tons, and with Venice 25,000 tons, in the course of the last two

years. He attributed these results to the increase of taxation in

Sardinia, through the introduction of the constitutional (the _Sardinian_

institutional) system of government, and to the comparatively easy

taxation of Venetia. The increased taxation of Sardinia from 1847 to 1857

was no less than 50,000,000 francs. With respect to education in the Papal

States, he contended that it was more diffused than it was in this

country—Great Britain.”

In countries that were so prosperous, every man literally “sitting under

his own vine and his own fig-tree,” it is difficult to believe that there

was wide-spread discontent and a general desire for radical changes. To

prove that there was, it would have required evidence of no ordinary

weight. All testimony that can be relied on shows a very different state

of feeling. Lord John Russell, in his too memorable Aberdeen speech, gave

expression to an opinion which, through the labors of the newspaper press,

had become very prevalent in England, that “under their provisional

revolutionary governments the people of Central Italy had conducted

themselves with perfect order, just as if they had been the citizens of a

country that had long enjoyed free institutions.”

The Marquis of Normanby, in his place in the British House of Peers, made

reply to this allegation:(5)

“I should like to know where the noble Lord found that information. There

is not in Central Italy a single government that has resulted from popular

election. They were all named by Piedmont—which had, as it were, packed

the cards. Liberty of speech there was none, nor liberty of the press, nor

personal liberty.... The Grand Duchess of Parma was expelled by a

Piedmontese army, and restored by the spontaneous call of her people. She

left the country, declaring that she would suffer everything sooner than

expose her subjects to the horrors of civil war.... Numberless atrocities

have been committed under the rule of these governments which, according

to my noble friend, are so wise and orderly. I read to you the first day

of this session the letter of a Tuscan, whose character is irreproachable.

Since that time I have received from him another letter, in which he says:

‘You will not be surprised to learn that my letter to you has been the

occasion of the coarsest invectives. For what reason I cannot tell, if it

was not because it spoke the truth.’