Pius IX.

                               And His Time

                                    By

                     The Rev. Æneas MacDonell Dawson.

                                 London:

         Printed by Thos. Coffey, Catholic Record Printing House.

                                   1880





CONTENTS


Preface.
Pius IX. And His Time.
Footnotes






PREFACE.


The history of Pius IX. will always be read with interest. His Pontificate
was, indeed, eventful. In no preceding age were the annals of the Church
so grandly illustrated.

The spiritual sovereignty, “with which,” to use the words of a British
statesman, “there is nothing on this earth that can at all compare,” was
crowned with surpassing glory. Doctrines which, hitherto, had been open to
theological discussion, were ascertained and pronounced to be in
accordance with the belief of all preceding Christian ages. The Church was
enabled, through the labors of her Chief and the zeal of her Priesthood,
to extend vastly the place of her tent. The life of Pius IX. himself was a
marvel and a glory. None of his predecessors, not even Peter, attained to
his length of days.

On the other hand, the venerable Pontiff, and, together with him, the
Catholic people, were doomed to behold and lament the loss of the
time-honored patrimony of St. Peter. The Papacy, however, unlike all
temporal sovereignties, was able to sustain so great a loss. More ancient
than its temporal power, it still survives; “not a mere antique, but in
undiminished vigor.”





PIUS IX. AND HIS TIME.


John Mary Count Mastai Ferreti was born at Sinigaglia, on the 13th of May,
1792. At the age of twenty-two he came to Rome. Anxious to serve the Holy
Father, and yet not aspiring to the priesthood, he resolved to become a
member of the Noble Guard. This the delicate state of his health forbade.
Repelled by the Prince Commandant, he sought counsel of the Pope. Pius
VII. pronounced that his destiny was the Cross, and advised him to devote
himself to the ecclesiastical state. The words of the Holy Father were, to
the youthful Mastai, as a voice from on high. He decided for the Church,
and, as if in testimony that his decision was ratified in heaven, the
falling-sickness left him. His studies were more than ordinarily
successful, and he already gave proof of those high qualities which were
afterwards so greatly developed. The distinguished Canon Graniare, his
professor, little dreaming of the exalted destiny which awaited him, held
him up as a pattern of excellence to his fellow-students, saying that he
possessed the heart of a Pope.

Whilst yet a student, Mastai interested himself in an orphanage, which was
founded by John Bonghi, a charitable mason of Rome. He spent in this
institution the first seven years of his priesthood, devoting himself to
the care of the orphans, who were, as yet, his only parishioners. The
income which he derived from family resources was liberally applied in
supplying the wants of these destitute children, and even in ministering
to their recreation.

It now became his duty to accompany, as a missionary priest, Monsignore
Mazi, who was appointed Vicar-Apostolic for Chili, Peru and Mexico. These
countries had thrown off the yoke of Spain and adopted Republican forms of
government. The Vicar-Apostolic and his companions suffered much in the
course of their voyage to America. They were cast into prison, at the
Island of Majorca, by Spanish officials, who took it amiss that Rome
should hold direct relations with the rebellious subjects of their
government. Their ship was attacked by corsairs, and was afterwards in
danger from a storm. A single circumstance only need be mentioned in order
to show what the faithful ministers of the Church had to endure when
traversing the inhospitable steppes of the Pampas. Once, at night, they
had no other shelter than a wretched cabin built with the bones of
animals, which still emitted a cadaverous odour.

In those arid deserts, they suffered from thirst as well as from dearth of
provisions. Great results can only be attained by equally great labors.
If, after a period of privation, the travellers enjoyed no more luxurious
refreshment than the waters of the crystal brook, it might well be said,
“de torrente in viabibet propterea exaltabit caput.” (They shall be
reduced to quench their thirst in the mountain stream, and therefore shall
be exalted.) The delegates of the Holy Father were received with
enthusiasm by the South American populations. Meanwhile, the narrow
governments that were set over those countries raised so many difficulties
that the mission was only partially successful.

This mission, however, was not without benefit to the Reverend Count
Mastai. It had been the means of developing the admirable qualities which
he possessed. It had afforded him the opportunity of seeing many cities,
as well as the manners and customs of many people. These lessons of travel
were not addressed to an ordinary mind. His views were enlarged, elevated
and refined by contact with so many rising or fallen civilizations, so
many different nationalities, and by the spectacle of Nature, that
admirable handmaid of the Divinity, with her varied splendors and her
manifold wonders, astonishing no less in the immensity of the ocean than
in the vast forests of the New World.

The mind appears to grow as the sphere of material life extends. Vast
horizons are adapted to great souls, and prepare them for great things.
The Abbe Mastai had thus received in his youth two most salutary lessons,
which are often wanting to the best-tried virtues of the sacerdotal
state—the lesson of the world, which Mastai had received before the time
of his vocation to Holy Orders, and the lessons of travel, which
disengages the mind from the bondage of local prejudices. Both of these
teachers he admirably understood. He had, indeed, drank of the torrent
which exalts.

Leo XII. now filled the Apostolic Chair. This Pontiff, highly appreciating
the good sense and penetration of which Mastai had given proof in the
difficult mission to Chili, appointed him Canon of Sancta Maria, Rome, _in
via lata_, and, at the same time, conferred on him the dignity of Prelate.
Never was the Roman purple more adorned by the learning and genuine virtue
of him on whom it was bestowed.

There is at Rome an institution of charity, the greatest which that city
or even the world possesses, the immense hospital of _St. Michael a Ripa
Grande_. A whole people dwells within its vast precincts. It is at once a
place of retreat for aged and infirm men, a most extensive professional
school for poor girls, and a sort of workshop, on a great scale, for
children that have been forsaken. The greater number learn trades. Some,
who give proof of higher talents, apply, at the expense of the hospital,
to the study of the fine arts. This hospital is, in itself, a world, and
its government requires almost the qualities of a statesman. Pope Leo
XII., anxious to render available the rare abilities of Canon Mastai,
named him President of the commission which governs this great
establishment. There was need, at the time, so low was the state of the
hospital budget, of the nicest management, unremitting care, and the
highest financial capacity. These qualities were all speedily at work, and
in the course of two years all the resources of the institution were in
admirable order. The fear of bankruptcy was removed, deficits of income
made up, and receipts abundant.

It had not been the custom to allow to apprentice-workmen any share in the
fruits of their labors. Herein Mastai effected a great and certainly not
uncalled-for reform. Far from impoverishing the hospital, this liberal
measure only showed, by its happy results, that justice is in perfect
harmony with economy, and that the best houses are not those which make
the most of the labor of their inmates, but those which encourage industry
by allowing it what is just. The orphans were thus, in two years, enabled
to have a small sum, which secured to them, so far, a mitigation of their
lot. Meanwhile, the proceeds of the hospital were doubled. This was
remarkable success. Count Mastai’s reputation for administrative ability
was now of the highest order.

In the Consistory of May 21st, 1827, Canon Count Mastai was named
Archbishop of Spoleto. Thus did Pope Leo XII. signalize his solicitude and
affection for the city of his birth. The appointment came not too soon. It
required all the influence of a great mind to maintain peace at Spoleto.
Party spirit ran high. One side clamored against abuses: the other,
dreading all change, clung pertinaciously to the past. Wrath was treasured
in every bosom. If civil war had not yet broken out, it raged already in
the breasts of the people. Spoleto resembled two hostile camps, and
vividly recalled the state of these cities of the Middle-Age, where stood
in presence, and armed from head to heel, the undying enmities of the
Ghibellins and the Guelphs. The slightest occasion would have sufficed to
cause the hardly-suppressed embers of deadly strife to burst into a flame.
Through the zeal and diplomacy of the Archbishop, such occasion was
averted. Spoleto may yet remember, and not without emotion, how earnestly
he studied to appease wild passions, with what delicacy and perseverance
he labored to reconcile the terrible feuds that prevailed, to calm the
dire spirit of revenge, to bury the sense of wrong in the oblivion of
forgiveness. At length, in 1831 and 1832, a hopeless rebellion unfurled
its blood-red banner. It was speedily and pitilessly repressed. Such an
occasion only was wanting in order to show what one man can do when
sustained by the power of virtue and the esteem of mankind. The foreign
and Teutonic arm which conquered the insurrection had been always hateful
to the Italian people; nor did its display and exercise of military force,
in restoring tranquillity to the troubled State, conciliate their
friendship.

Only when vanquished did the rebels appear before the walls of Spoleto. In
their extremity, they came to beg for shelter and for bread. In the
estimation of the benevolent Archbishop, they were as lost sheep whom it
was his duty, if possible, to save. He hastened, accordingly, to meet the
wolf. The Austrian General, although a stern warrior, was, at the same
time, the servant of a Christian Power. He listened to the Archbishop’s
remonstrances, and resolved to refrain from further military proceedings,
the Prelate undertaking to disarm the rebels, and thus satisfy the sad
requirements of war without any recourse to useless and hateful cruelties.
Returning to the city, he addressed the insurgents, and, to his
unspeakable satisfaction, they at once came to lay at his feet those arms
which the Austrian soldiers could only have torn from their lifeless
bodies. Thus did the good pastor, by disarming, save the rebellious flock.

Mastai was now transferred to Imola. This city is less considerable than
Spoleto. The diocese, however, is richer and more populous. Its Episcopal
chair leads directly to the Cardinalate. It has also thrice given to the
Catholic Church its Chief Pastor. The people of Spoleto sent a deputation,
but in vain, to beseech the Holy Father to leave the good pastor to his
affectionate flock.

He was destined also to reign in the hearts of the good people of Imola.
The numerous institutions there, which owe their existence to his
Episcopal zeal and Christian charity, are monuments of his pastoral care.
The virtue of which Archbishop Mastai was so bright a pattern had no
sourness in it, no outward show of austerity; nor was it forbidding and
intolerant, but sweet and gentle. Words of forgiveness were always on his
lips, and his hand was ever open to distress. He labored assiduously to
reform, wherever reform was needed, but, what rarely happens, without
alienating affection from the reformer. It was his constant study to
elevate the character of the clergy, and he ceased not to encourage among
them learning as well as piety. Into the Diocesan Seminary, which was
always the object of his most anxious care, he introduced some new
branches of study, such as agriculture, practical as well as theoretical,
and a general knowledge of the medical art. There was yet wanting to the
clergy of his diocese a common centre where they could meet for mutual
edification and instruction. To this purpose he devoted his own palace,
and founded there a Biblical Academy. The members of this Academy met once
a month in order to discuss together some subjects connected with the
Sacred Writings. None can be ignorant how powerfully such meetings
contribute to promote the study of the Scriptures, pulpit eloquence, and
the great science of theology. In order, moreover, to obviate the dangers
to which students were exposed, who, whilst they studied at the Seminary,
were not inmates, and enjoyed not the safeguards of its discipline, he
founded an institution called the “Convitto,” where the poorer alumni were
boarded without charge.

Anxious also to provide for the comfort of the lowly poor, and to guard
against all wasting of their humble means, the good Prelate reformed the
hospital of Imola, and set over it the Sisters of Charity—that
incomparable Order which owes its existence to the most benevolent of men,
St. Vincent de Paul. Nor, in his higher state, did he forget his first
care—the orphan. An orphanage at Imola is due to his munificence. There
were no bounds to his liberality. At his own expense alone he repaired the
tomb of St. Cassien, and decorated the Chapel of Our Lady of Dolours in
the Church of the Servites.

When raised to the dignity of Cardinal, by Pope Gregory XVI., in December,
1840, Archbishop Mastai was already universally popular. The ovations of a
later period may have originated in political motives—may even have been
promoted by a political party; but the honors now spontaneously heaped
upon him were awarded to the man and the Christian pastor. Congratulations
in prose and in verse, illuminations, fireworks, demonstrations of every
kind, announced the joy with which the new Cardinal was welcomed
everywhere.

Gregory XVI. had the reputation of being highly conservative. In the true
sense of the term, he really was so. Nevertheless, he was not averse to
reform, and he showed that he was not when he elevated Archbishop Mastai,
whose tendencies were well known, to the rank and office of Cardinal. More
than this, in concurrence with the Great Powers of Europe, with whom he
took counsel, he labored to introduce certain salutary reforms in his
States. Such reforms, indeed, were needed; and the aged Pontiff resolved
on them, not only in order to render unnecessary the intervention of
foreign arms in the affairs of his government, but also with a view to
bring his rule into harmony with the spirit and civilization of the age.
If in this most laudable undertaking he did not succeed, he owed his
failure to the Socialist party, those enemies of law and order, of
property, and life even, whose fatal action at a later period marred the
political career of Pius IX. The Roman people, generally, were capable of
appreciating, and surely did appreciate, the enlightened efforts of their
Pontiff Sovereign. They were not, as some writers would have us believe,
in a semi-barbarous condition. Sylvio Pellico, whose testimony cannot be
questioned, speaks of them in the following terms: “The eight months I
have spent at Rome in 1845 and 1846 (time of Gregory XVI.) have abounded
in delightful impressions. It can never be sufficiently told how well this
venerable city deserves to be visited, and not in passing only. How the
good and beautiful abound in it!” A little later, Pellico writes: “I
continue to be quite delighted with Rome, both as regards men and things.
In the small book, _Dei Doceri_, I have shown my inclination to avoid
being absolute in my judgments, a too common error, especially with minds
that dogmatize passionately. By such Rome is often unjustly judged.

“Several types of social customs must be considered as moderately good;
and we cannot condemn, as decidedly bad, anything but barbarism,
irreligion and a superabundance of knaves and fools. These odious elements
are by no means over-abundant in this country. And in the midst of evils
that are unavoidable everywhere, I observe great intellectual power, much
goodness, cultivated minds, gracious and sincere generosity. Whoever comes
to Rome will be morally well off as regards intelligence. He will be so,
likewise, on account of the sociability of the inhabitants. The Romans are
a jovial people. But even their joviality is as admirably subject to good
order as it is graceful, and does not impair the natural goodness of their
disposition. But perhaps I am wrong; and it were better I should assume a
frowning aspect, and behold only attempts on life, importunate beggary,
useless priests and monks, and reserve my praises for those happy nations
where there are no crimes, no inequality of fortune, no misery.
Impassioned men declaim, exaggerate, lie. For my part, I am neither an
optimist nor a pessimist. It is impossible to speak with certainty of the
moral of a country if we speak of it too soon. I know that here at Rome I
find amiability, science and good sense. It seems to me that everything is
much the same as in other civilized countries.”

Such was the people over whom, on the 16th day of June, 1846, Cardinal
Mastai was called to exercise authority in the twofold capacity of Pontiff
and Prince. On the first day of the Conclave several votes were cast for
the liberal-minded Cardinal Gizzi, and some in favor of the
highly-conservative Lambruschini. The second day all joined for Mastai.
And thus was elected to the Papal Chair, by the unanimous voice of the
Sacred College, one of their body, who, in all the positions which he had
held, as Priest, as Archbishop, as Cardinal, had shown his determination
to promote reform and improvement. No better proof could be required that
the Cardinals perfectly understood the state of the country, its urgent
wants, its relations with the Church and the rest of the world.

There was much rejoicing in the Papal City. It seemed as if, with the
elevation of a great character to high authority, the days of the
Millennium had at length dawned on the distracted world. There was now
question only of forgiveness for the past. Order and peace only were
possible in time to come. The new Pontiff was resolved that there should
be no element of sorrow to mar the general joy; and so he amnestied the
political offenders who had borne arms against the government of his
predecessor. Only one condition was required, viz.: that, in the future,
they should fulfil the duties of good and order-loving subjects. Thus were
fifteen hundred exiles restored to their families, who had lost all hope
of ever seeing them again. The cases only of a small number of the
ring-leaders of the rebellion were reserved for consideration, and they,
too, were cheered with the hope of pardon. The preamble of the decree of
amnesty, all in the Pope’s own handwriting, bore the following words:

“At the time when the public joy occasioned by our accession to the office
of Sovereign Pontiff caused us to experience in our inmost soul the most
lively emotion, we could not avoid entertaining a feeling of sorrow when
we remembered that a great number of families amongst our people could not
take part in the general rejoicing, deprived, as they were, of domestic
happiness.... On the other hand, we cast a look of compassion on the
numerous and inexperienced youth, which, although carried away by
deceitful flatterers, in the midst of political troubles, appeared to us
guilty rather of allowing itself to be led astray, than of deceiving
others. On this account it was that, from that moment, we cherished the
thought of extending a friendly hand, and offering peace to such of these
dear but misguided children as should come to us, and give proof of their
sincere repentance.”

Night was drawing on when the decree was posted on the walls of Rome. It
was observed, however, amidst the growing darkness; and no sooner was the
word _amnesty_ read than a cry of enthusiasm was heard. People hastened
from their houses in all directions, the passers-by stopped in crowds to
read, by torchlight, the cabalistic words. Among the fast-assembling
masses there was but one feeling. They embraced and even wept for joy. In
the depth of their emotion, and whilst yet, as may be said, intoxicated
with delight, they sought how to express their gratitude. The cry was
raised, “To the Quirinal!” Arrived there, they hailed, with loud and
united voice, the beneficent Pontiff—“Vivat Pius Nonus!” “Long live our
Holy Father!” Crowd after crowd thus approached the person of the Pope. It
was now late, and Pius IX., much fatigued, overwhelmed by his emotions,
had withdrawn to the silence of his Oratory. Meanwhile, fresh crowds of
overjoyed citizens were pressing forward. Ten thousand men, at least, were
now waiting, with respectful anxiety, under the walls of the Quirinal
Palace. The French Ambassador to Rome, Count Rossi, was a witness of these
events. He became also their historian. He wrote thus to M. Guizot:

“Suddenly the acclamations are redoubled. I had not yet understood on what
account, when some one called my attention to the light which was shining
through the window-blinds at the farthest end of the Pontifical Palace.
The people had observed that the Holy Father was traversing the apartment
in order to reach the balcony. It was speedily thrown open, and the
Sovereign Pontiff, in a white robe and scarlet mantle, made his
appearance, surrounded by torches. If your Excellency (M. Guizot, at that
time Minister of the French King, Louis Philippe) will only figure to
yourself a magnificent place, a summer night, the sky of Rome, an immense
people moved with gratitude, weeping for joy and receiving with love and
reverence the benediction of their Pastor and their Prince, you will not
be astonished, if I add that we have shared the general emotion, and have
placed this spectacle above every thing that Rome had as yet offered to
our contemplation. Just as I had foreseen, as soon as the window was
closed the crowd withdrew peacefully and in perfect silence. You would
have called them a people of mutes; they were satisfied.”

It is not so difficult to grant an amnesty. It is delightful, even, to men
of the character of Pius IX. to dispense forgiveness. This is particularly
the office and the privilege of the Church. Sterner duties devolve upon
the statesman. And, however reconcileable the two courses of conduct in
public affairs may really be, it is difficult often to reconcile them.

The amnesty, although far from being everything, was, nevertheless, a
beginning, and one of favorable omen. The furrow was opened, to use the
language of M. Rossi, and no doubt the ploughing would proceed. Many
formidable difficulties must, however, be surmounted. On the one hand,
stood the influence of the old feudal Conservative party, which frowned on
the slightest change. On the other, were the Socialists, who aimed at the
destruction of every existing institution—in whose estimation property
even was not sacred, nor life itself. It was necessary, meanwhile, to
improve the condition of the people, and, in doing so, to guard against
anarchy. By wise and well-considered reforms only could the growth and
advance of revolution be discouraged and stayed, whilst a political
system, almost entirely new, came to be firmly established. For this
purpose, it was necessary that there should prevail in the Pontifical
States a sounder state of opinion. This was not the work of a single day.
It was necessary, nevertheless, as the people could not be safely led by
their ever-changing emotions. Based on such quicksands, the government of
the Holy Father could have no stability, and it was his aim so to form it
that it should be able to keep its ground without the aid of foreign arms.
The state of Italy, the peculiar position of the Pontifical States, the
character of modern civilization, the spirit of the age—all conspired to
produce new wants, and, at the same time, made it a matter of the greatest
difficulty to meet them. “This difficulty,” writes the Spanish Sage,
Balmes, “it was impossible to surmount by chanting patriotic hymns any
more than by having recourse to Austrian bayonets.”

By none was this better understood than by Pius IX. The study of State
affairs was not new to him. He had considered and lamented the condition
of things which so often brought upon his country foreign invasion, the
horrors of war, and punishments without end, inflicted on his
fellow-citizens. It is related even that he prepared and presented to
Gregory XVI. a programme of reforms, which he believed would bring the
necessary remedy. Now that he was at the head of the State, he believed
that the responsibility devolved on him of introducing such reforms as
were called for by the exigency of the time, and by which alone he was
persuaded the evils which oppressed the country could be brought to an
end. It was not possible, as yet, to inaugurate any general measure of
reform. In the meantime, however, the rule of the Pontiff was
characterized by wise, just, humane and liberal acts, which could not fail
to pave the way for the greater improvements which he meditated. Among
these lesser, but by no means unimportant, reforms may be mentioned the
abolition of an odious law which had long disgraced the legislation of so
many Christian nations. The punishment by imprisonment for petty debts
was, in the estimation of Pius IX., as unjust as it was cruel and hateful.
It answered no better purpose, for the most part, than the gratification
of private spite. By a generous contribution from his own funds, the Pope
threw open the prisons of the Capitol. He set a great example, which could
not fail to promote the cause of virtue whilst it relieved the indigent,
by distributing twelve thousand Roman _ecus_, in the form of dowries,
among the young women of poor families, whose poverty rendered an
honorable settlement extremely difficult. He also encouraged collections
in favor of such of the amnestied parties as were in need. His financial
reforms were more important. And by these he won a title to the gratitude
of the State. The public revenue was alarmingly deficient. Only by some
great change could ruin be averted. First of all, he proposed that his
faithful clergy should make a sacrifice; and every convent engaged to pay
ten _scudi_ yearly, and every parish priest a _scudo_ during three
consecutive years. He himself set the example of the most rigid economy by
reducing the scale of his establishment. He at the same time retrenched
those rich sinecures which were, so to say, engrafted on the temporalities
of the Papacy. What was well worthy of a great statesman, he showed the
most enlightened sympathy for all the sciences which contribute to the
material and intellectual well-being of the populations, such as
physiology, natural history, political economy and mathematics. Nor was he
unwilling that his people should avail themselves of the knowledge of
foreigners. He went so far as to intimate his intention to re-establish
the celebrated Scientific Academy, _Di Lincei_.

He could not, as yet, by any other than such isolated acts as these,
evince the elevated and liberal tendencies of his mind, in which were
blended boldness with moderation, and views of reform with all that became
his position, and was adapted to the wants of the country and the age.

Pius IX., although not a constitutional sovereign, and unable so to
constitute himself, was anxious, nevertheless, to give to his people all
the benefits of constitutional government. A first step was to choose a
popular Minister, and Cardinal Gizzi was called to the counsels of the
State. This Cardinal was beloved at Rome, and not undeservedly. When
Legate at Forli, he had opposed the establishment of an arbitrary court,
and thus won for himself the sympathies of all national reformers. His
loyalty, sincerity and patriotism were well known; nor was he wanting in
any other quality of the statesman. Of a patient and enquiring mind, he
was incapable of coming hastily to a decision; but, when once resolved, he
could not be easily diverted from his purpose. The ministry of such a man
was full of promise; but in this lay its weakness. It held out hopes
which, in the state of parties which at that time prevailed, it was unable
to realize. There were two great parties at Rome, with neither of which
the Gizzi ministry was in sympathy. There existed no party with which it
could act harmoniously. There were no reformers. It would have been most
fortunate for Pius IX. if such a party could have been formed, but the
elements were wanting. The true idea of constitutional government was as
little understood in Italy as in the rest of continental Europe. The only
party at Rome who desired change were the Socialists, who identified
reform with subversion, who denied every right, and sought the destruction
of all existing institutions. No wonder if, in presence of such a faction,
the aristocracy, so highly conservative, dreaded and opposed all change.
The Socialists, whilst by the fear which they inspired strengthened the
hands of the conservative party, opposed and prevented the formation of a
body of reformers who, like Gizzi and Pius IX., would have labored
intelligently to forward the cause of reform, never losing sight of the
great principles of humanity and justice, never sacrificing to Utopian
theories inalienable rights, above all the rights of property—the very
groundwork of the social fabric. Without the aid and countenance of a body
of reformers, the able ministry that now surrounded the Pope found it
difficult to proceed. They could not determine for any important
constitutional change. They could not even undertake any considerable
improvement.

They were, however, not inactive. They studied to educate the people by
improving and extending the public schools, and by what was, indeed, an
advance in continental Europe—establishing a periodical press.

There were few cities so highly favored as Rome as regards the facilities
for educating youth. Nevertheless, there was room for improvement, and
Pius IX. accordingly established in the city a central school for the
instruction of the youth of the operative classes. This was a school of
arts and manufactures, and, at the same time, a military institution, in
which the pupils were qualified to become either tradesmen or subordinate
officers in the army. Whilst Cardinal Gizzi was Minister many other useful
schemes met the approbation of the Pontiff, and were sanctioned by his
signature.

Not a few commissions also were appointed—some for the study of railway
communication in the Roman States, others for the improvement of both
criminal and civil procedure, and others for the amelioration of the
municipal system and the repression of vagrancy.

Rome, so richly endowed in many respects, could scarcely be said, as yet,
to possess a periodical press. To establish such a press was, for the
reforming ministry, a labor of love. Whilst they were preparing a law by
which it should be called into existence and its liberty secured and
regulated, Pius IX., in anticipation of their labors, authorized the
publication of several journals. First, came the “Contemporaneo,” which
was followed in due time by the “Bilancia,” the “Italico,” the “Alba.”
These publications were in sympathy, at first, with the Pontiff and his
reforming ministry. They advocated only rational reform, real improvement,
such changes as were both practicable and useful. They had not yet
discovered the excellence of the Socialist utopia. Their enthusiasm and
their _vivats_ were all for the reformer Pope.

It is far from being matter of surprise to Catholic people, at least, that
the See of Rome should be the first to practice the virtues—the high
morality which it teaches. In regard to their treatment of the Jewish
people, the Christian nations generally stood in need of such an example
as Papal Rome has always shown in her consideration for the race of
Israel. The nations, although professing Christianity, have been anything
but Christian in their conduct towards these people. It was their idea,
one would say, that they were called of heaven to execute justice on an
offending race. The Popes never believed that they or any other Christians
were entrusted with such a mission. Accordingly, the Jews, when cruelly
persecuted in other countries, always found protection and safety at Rome
under the wing of the Pope. Even such restrictions as they were subject
to, contributed to maintain them in security and peace. The Holy Father,
although it was his sublime mission to preach the Gospel, could not always
cause its precepts to be obeyed. If prejudice was against living on terms
of charity with the Jews, was it not kind, as well as wise and politic, to
assign to them a quarter of the city where only they should dwell, free
from all interference on the part of the rest of the inhabitants? Pius IX.
believed that the time had come when a more liberal arrangement might be
advantageously adopted. In pursuance of this conviction, he regulated that
the Jews should enjoy the privilege of establishing their habitations
wherever they should deem it most suitable, that they should be governed
by the same laws as the other citizens, and in no way be treated as a
foreign people. Such of them as stood in need of assistance Pius IX.
admitted to a share in his benefactions, and without occasioning the
slightest murmur on the part of his Christian subjects.

The Jews, whilst considered as foreigners in Rome, were subject to the
custom of coming yearly to the Capitol to pay tribute. With this custom
the Holy Father generously dispensed. All this liberality and kindness
were highly appreciated. The Jewish people generally beheld in the wise
and Holy Pontiff the looked-for Messiah. The aged Rabbins, more
considerate, affirmed only that the Pope was a great prophet. The chief of
the Synagogue, Moses Kassan, composed in his honor a canticle marked by
poetic inspiration. It extols and blesses the Holy Father for having
gathered together in the same barque all the children whom God had
confided to his care ... for having snatched from the contempt of nations,
and sheltered under his wing, a persecuted people.

There being many Christians of the United Greek rite throughout the
dominions of the Sultan, it was necessary that the Holy Father should
negotiate, occasionally, with the successor of Mahomet. Pius IX. yielded
not to any of his predecessors in zeal for the welfare of all Catholic
people. Those who lived and often suffered under the Moslem yoke were,
especially, objects of his fatherly solicitude. Policy had not yet brought
the Cross into the same field of strife in union with the Crescent, when,
on the 20th of February, 1847, the portals of the Quirinal were thrown
open to the Ambassador of the Sublime Porte. To the Jews the Rome of Pius
IX. was as a new Jerusalem. Islamism, from its tottering throne at
Constantinople, looked towards it with hope and rapture.

The armed protection of Christians in the Turkish dominions, by the great
European Powers, was, no doubt, galling to the Sultan’s court. It was,
therefore, ardently desired, we can readily believe, to place the
Christians of the Levant under the peaceful guardianship of the Roman
Pontiff. The Embassy may also have had other objects in view. Be this as
it may, it was new and quite extraordinary to behold the representative of
the prophet at the palace of the Sovereign Pontiff. No wonder if all
Europe was moved to admiration. The presentation was very solemn—in the
high ceremonial of Eastern lands. Chekif Effendi, the Turkish Ambassador,
saluted the Holy Father in Oriental style, and addressed to him a
magnificent oration, which was richly interspersed with metaphors—the
pearls and diamonds of his country’s eloquence. The Sublime Porte was
compared to the Queen of Sheba, and Pius IX. to King Solomon. Whatever may
be thought of the figures, the sentiments expressed in the speech were
appropriate and affecting. The Pope replied by assuring the Ambassador
that he was anxious to cultivate friendly relations with the Sultan, his
master. Three days later Chekif Effendi took his departure from Rome,
bearing with him on his breast, as a _nishun_ (decoration), the portrait
of the Holy Father.

This Embassy was more than mere show—more than an interchange of friendly
sentiments. It enabled the Pope to adopt a measure which was calculated to
be highly beneficial to the Christians of the East. The Latin Patriarchate
of Jerusalem was restored. And thus was accomplished a wonderful
revolution in European diplomacy as regarded the Eastern world. At the
request of the Porte, the Latin Patriarch became bound to reside in the
city of Jerusalem. In the confidential position which he held there, he
was the natural protector of the Catholic subjects of the Sultan. In
addition to the duties of his sacred office, he was, as a consul,
appointed by the Holy See to watch over the interests of
religion—interests as important, surely, as those of trade and worldly
policy. The first whom the Pope named to the dignity of Latin Patriarch
was Monsignore Valergo, who had formerly been a missionary at Paris.

There appears to have been something irresistibly attractive in the
character of Pius IX. That illustrious champion of Ireland and of liberty,
Daniel O’Connell, resolved, towards the close of his days, to visit Rome
and pay the homage of a kindred spirit to the Holy Father. Not only was he
anxious to be enriched with the choicest heavenly benedictions, whilst
kneeling reverently at the shrine of the Apostles, but he desired also,
with a fervor which finds place only in the most nobly-moulded souls,
whose love of liberty and whose patriotism are unfeigned and pure, to hold
communion with one who was, no less than himself, a friend of liberty, and
whose exalted station, and whose high duties towards mankind at large,
hindered him not from laboring, as did Ireland’s patriot, to liberate his
country, not, indeed, from such cruel bondage as that under which the land
of O’Connell had for so many ages groaned, but from the no less dangerous
tyranny of abuses which, like weeds that grow most luxuriantly in the
richest soil, it becomes necessary, in due season, to extirpate.

It was not, however, appointed that Ireland’s liberator should ever see
Rome. His illness continued to increase. No sooner had he reached the
shores of Italy than the strength of his once powerful frame declined
rapidly, and he was unable to proceed. Arrived at Genoa, O’Connell
understood that his last hour on earth was near at hand. He now expressed
the wish that his heart should rest in the Holy City. Thither,
accordingly, it was borne by friendly hands to commingle with the
consecrated dust of heroes, saints and martyrs. To Rome it was a relic of
incomparable price. Although cold and inanimate, it was still eloquent in
death, and grandly emblematic of all that he had been to whom it was the
centre of life, and to whose generous impulses it had so long and so
faithfully beat responsive.

That son of O’Connell who bore his name, together with the Rev. Dr. Miley,
of Dublin, who had accompanied him to Genoa and ministered to him in his
last hours, now proceeded to Rome and sought the presence of the Holy
Father. On their arrival at the Quirinal, the halls and ante-chambers were
already filled with groups of personages in every style of costume, from
the glittering uniform to the cowl. The travellers, therefore, must wait
till all these have had an audience. But no. The name of O’Connell, as if
possessed of talismanic power, caused them to be at once admitted to the
presence of the Holy Father. The reception was most cordial. “Since the
happiness I had so much longed for,” said the Pontiff, “was not reserved
for me, to behold and embrace the hero of Christianity, let me, at least,
have the consolation to embrace his son.” “As he spoke,” writes Dr. Miley,
“he drew the son of O’Connell to his bosom and embraced him, not unmoved,
with the tenderness of a father and a friend. Then, with an emotion which
stirred our hearts within us, this great Father of the faithful poured out
his benign and loving soul in words of comfort, which proved that it was
not new to him to pour the balm of heaven into broken and wounded hearts.”
“His death,” said the Pontiff, “was blessed. I have read the letter in
which his last moments were described with the greatest consolation.” The
Pope then proceeded to eulogize the liberator, as the great champion of
religion and the Church, as the father of his people and the glory of the
whole Christian world. “How else,” observed Monsignore Cullen, late
Cardinal Archbishop of Dublin, who was present, “could the Pope have
spoken of him than he has done, even if he had been the bosom friend of
the liberator, as well as the ardent admirer of his career.” Nor must we
fail to record the terms in which the venerable Pontiff, on this memorable
occasion, referred to Ireland. The thought of O’Connell was one with that
of his native Erin. Death, even, could not sever them. Whilst the living
image of grief and bereavement stood in his presence, the Holy Father
could not refrain from giving expression to his paternal sympathy. But, at
the same time, the country of O’Connell was not forgotten. Writes Dr.
Miley: “While he spoke of the sufferings of the Irish, of their fidelity,
of his solicitude and his hopes regarding them, it was beautiful and
impressive beyond my power to describe, to observe that countenance,
which, like a mirror, reflects the charity, the compassionate care, the
fortitude, with a hundred other sentiments divine, which are never dormant
within his breast.”

Pius IX., anxious that due honor should be done to the memory of
O’Connell, gave orders for the celebration of a solemn funeral service,
and intimated his will and command that it should be celebrated in his
name. “The achievements also of his wonderful existence I desire to be
commemorated and made known to the world”—not that this is necessary,
“because,” said the Pontiff with a sublime look and gesture, “his grand
career was ever in the face of heaven—he always stood up for legality—he
had nothing to hide; and it was this, with his unshaken fidelity and
reverence for religion, that secured his triumph.” It is only justice to
the people of Rome to state that they vied with the Sovereign Pontiff, the
magnates of their country and the representatives of European nations at
the Holy City, in doing honor to the memory of O’Connell. “From the Campus
Martius,” writes Dr. Miley, “and the Roman Forum, from both sides of the
Tiber, and from all the seven hills and their interjacent valleys, this
people, who grow up from infancy with the trophies of thirty centuries of
greatness around them on every hand, assembled with enthusiasm to
supplicate heaven for the eternal happiness of Ireland’s liberator, and to
exult in the wonders he had achieved, as if he had been their own.” The
greatest homage paid by Rome on this melancholy occasion, was undoubtedly,
the funeral oration, which was spoken by the Bossuet of Italy, the
celebrated preacher, Father Ventura, the friend and fellow-student of Pius
IX. This most eloquent discourse was listened to with attention and
delight by the vast congregation that had gathered round the cenotaph of
the immortal patriot. Let a passage or two here suffice to give an idea of
the magnificent panegyric:

“It is, then, because these two loves—the love of religion and the love of
liberty, common to all good Princes, to all great minds, to all truly
learned men, to all elevated souls, to all generous hearts might be said
to be personified in Daniel O’Connell—because in him they manifested
themselves in all the perfection of their nature—in all the energy of
their deeply-felt conviction—in all the potency of their strength—in all
the splendor of their magnificence, and in all the glory of their triumph;
it is because of all this that this singular man—who was born and has
lived at such a distance from Rome—is now admired, is now wept for by you,
as if he had been born in the midst of you. Hence it is that this great
character, this sublime nature, has awakened all your sympathies.”

O’Connell had studied for some time at the College of St. Omer, in France.
What he saw and learned in that country is ably described by the Italian
orator:

“He saw with his own eyes monarchy compelled to degrade itself, and to
inflict its death-wound with its own hand; he saw the throne that base
courtiers had dragged through the mire defiled by the grip of parricidal
hands, and buried, fathoms deep, beneath a sea of blood; he saw the best
of kings expire upon a scaffold, the victim not less of other men’s crimes
than of his own weakness; he saw that vice was hailed, as if it were
virtue, wickedness uplifted, as if it were morality atheism, proclaimed
aloud, as if it were religion; that the ‘Goddess of Reason’ (or rather a
vile strumpet) was recognized as the only Deity, and honored with
hecatombs of human victims; the people decimated and oppressed by cruel
tyrants, in the name of the people; whilst beneath the shade of the tree
of liberty was instituted universal slavery; and that the most Christian,
as well as the most civilized of all nations, had fallen down to the
lowest limits of impiety and barbarism.

“Now, God having so disposed that the young O’Connell should be witness of
these events—the most celebrated and the most instructive to be found in
the annals of history—they served to inspire him with the greatest horror
for tumults and rebellion; they persuaded him that there is nothing more
insane, and, at the same time, more pernicious than to proclaim the rights
of man, in trampling upon those of heaven—in establishing liberty on the
ruins of religion—in making laws, under the dictation of passion, or
through the inspiration of sacrilege—and, finally, they convinced him,
that to _regenerate_ a people, religion is omnipotent—philosophy of little
or no avail.”

In alluding to the well-known piety of O’Connell, the preacher said: “What
more moving spectacle than to see the greatest man in the United
Kingdom—to see him, who was the object of Ireland’s devotion, of England’s
fear, and of the world’s admiration, kneeling with the people before the
altar, practicing the piety of the people, with that humble simplicity,
that recollection, that devoutness, and that modesty, which supercilious
science and stolid pride abandon as things fit only to be followed by
those whom they disdain as the people?”

It is matter of notoriety that the Tory party, whose death-knell was soon
to be tolled, constantly poured on the great Irish Tribune the most
scurrilous abuse. One of the mock titles with which they honored him was
that of “King of the Beggars.” Such pitiful ribaldry awakened the highest
powers of the Roman orator. “Poor, miserable, and most pitiful fatuity
which, while intending to mock, actually did him honor. For, what
sovereignty is more beautiful than that whose tribute is not wrung from
unwilling fear, but that is a voluntary, love-inspired offering? What
sovereignty is more glorious than that whose sword is the pen, and whose
only artillery the tongue; whose only couriers are the poor, and its sole
bodyguard the affections of the people? What sovereignty more beneficent
than that which, far from causing tears to flow, dries them; which, far
from shedding blood, stanches it; which, far from immolating life,
preserves it; which, far from pressing down upon the people, elevates
them; which, far from forging chains, breaks them; and which always
maintains order, harmony and peace, without ever inflicting the slightest
aggression on liberty? Where is the monarch who would not esteem himself
happy in reigning thus? Of such a sovereignty, we may with truth say what
was said of Solomon’s, that none can equal its grandeur, its glory and its
magnificence.”

So favorable an opportunity for instructing the Italians was not thrown
away. False liberty was already strewing their path with its meretricious
allurements. “As true liberty diffuses around it peace and grace and calm,
so does false liberty disseminate, wherever it is implanted, terror,
dismay and horror. The brows of one are illuminated with the splendid halo
of order, and those of the other are covered with the red cap of anarchy.
One holds in her hand the olive-branch of peace; the other waves the torch
of discord. One is arrayed in robes white as those of innocence, and the
other is enveloped in the dark, blood-stained mantle of guilt. One is the
prop of thrones; the other a yawning abyss beneath them. One is the glory
and the happiness of nations; the other their disgrace and their
punishment. The latter bursts out of hell as if it were a poisonous blast
issuing from the jaws of the devil himself; whilst true liberty descends
sweetly and gently upon the earth, as if the spirit of God had sent it
down to us a holy and blessed thing from heaven. _Ubi spiritus Domini ibi
Libertas._”

None will be surprised to learn that on hearing these singularly eloquent
words, the immense auditory could no longer control their emotions. A
general murmur of approbation was heard throughout the vast temple and was
breaking out into loud applause, when the preacher, mindful of the
reverence due to the holy place, made haste to repress it.

This great demonstration may well be considered as the best testimony that
could be given as to the real sentiments of the Italian people. They were
not ignorant of the nature of that liberty for which O’Connell had so long
and successfully contended. Nor were they under any erroneous impression
as to what the gifted preacher meant when he extolled in such glowing
terms that true liberty which is the glory, at once, and the best security
of nations. If, a little later, they pursued the phantom instead of the
reality, it must be considered that, as yet, they had no political
education or experience, and that no high-principled Tribune, like
O’Connell, stood forward to lead them. All who aspired to guide them, and
who won their confidence, were tainted with the doctrines of the Socialist
party, whose ideas of government and liberty were utterly utopian.

If it could be said that public rejoicings afforded any assistance to the
Pope, in his labors as the head of the Roman State, he was not left
without aid in his great undertakings. Such things, however, rather
hindered than promoted his endeavors. His people had, so to say,
commenced, under his auspices, a long and laborious journey. There was no
time for mere pleasure and amusement. Nevertheless, whenever a new scene
or landscape opened to their view, they stopped to rejoice, and gave
themselves up, without control, to the intoxication of delight. In so
doing they laid themselves open to the snares and attacks of many secret
enemies, who availed themselves of their frequent gatherings to sow the
seeds of discord and corrupt their minds with false political doctrines.
Far better would it have been if they had left to the Sovereign in whom,
at first, they placed unbounded confidence, and the wise Ministers whom he
called to his counsels, the care of forwarding the cause of reform. It had
been most benevolently and successfully begun, and was proceeding, in the
estimation of all but an impatient people, with rapidity which had no
parallel in the history of nations. The people, by assembling tumultuously
on occasion of every popular measure, no doubt meant no more at first than
to show gratitude and affection to their pastor and prince. Such meetings,
however, were not without danger to the cause of reform. The political
enemies of the Pope easily foresaw that, by his wise and popular
improvements in the State, he would certainly secure to himself a
peaceful, strong and glorious reign. So, laying hold of the general
enthusiasm, they trained and disciplined to their will a people who were
naturally good and unsuspecting. These men came at length to give the
watchword, and, according to their wishes and the views which it suited
them to insinuate into the popular mind, the uneducated and fickle
multitude expressed satisfaction or discontent, as they defiled in
imposing masses before the mansion of the Pontiff. Thus was formed a sort
of government out of doors, which, if it did not yet oppose or appear to
oppose at least, powerfully swayed the official authority. Cardinal Gizzi,
whose ministry was so popular, deemed it necessary to require by
proclamation that these noisy demonstrations should cease. It was too
late. The people, defying the Cardinal’s mandate, hastened in crowds to
the Quirinal, saluted, as usual, the Pope with enthusiastic _vivats_,
expressing, at the same time, their detestation of his ministry, which
they were wont to applaud so loudly, and which, if it had not by any great
activity done much to acquire, had certainly done nothing to forfeit their
favor. “_Viva Pio Nono! Pio Nono Solo!_” was now their cry. The Pope
himself next came to be considered as intolerably dilatory in preparing
measures of reform. Nor did he escape the accusation, at the same time, of
sacrificing to his zeal, as a temporal ruler, the higher duties which he
owed to religion and the Church. According to one set of revilers, he was
breaking with inviolable tradition. Others insisted that so enthusiastic a
reformer of the State must be a revolutionist in the Church. Such attacks
were met by anticipation in the Encyclical of 9th November, 1846. This
well-known document was received with applause by the civilized world. It
leaves no ground for the charges in question. It would only destroy the
Church to pretend to reform its dogma and revolutionize its discipline and
government. Such an idea could proceed from no other source than the
stratagems of unbelief, or from the snares of the wolf, who, in sheep’s
clothing, seeks to insinuate himself into the fold. It is nothing short of
sacrilege to hold that religion is susceptible of progress or improvement,
as if it were a philosophical discovery, which could advance with the
march of science. The Holy Father enumerates also in this Encyclical the
principal grounds of faith, and exhorts all bishops to oppose with all
their zeal and learning those who, alleging progress as their motive,
perversely endeavor to destroy religion by subjecting it to every man’s
individual judgment. He condemns indifference as regards religion,
eloquently defends ecclesiastical celibacy, and, mindful that the Church
is the teacher of the great as well as of the humble, he enforces the
obligations of sovereigns towards their subjects, not forgetting the
fulfilment of all the duties which the people owe to their rulers. In a
former Encyclical, Pius IX. had expressed his predilection for the
religious orders. This expression was now renewed. Time may have
interfered, more or less, with their discipline. Anxious to preserve them
and promote their prosperity, he was ever willing to correct such abuses
as may have existed. To some communities he offered the most admirable
suggestions. Others he honored with personal visits, evincing always a
truly pastoral zeal for the well-being of institutions so precious to
religion.

Pius IX., although deeply occupied with affairs of State that would have
commanded all the attention and energy of any ordinary mind, found time,
nevertheless, for the discharge of duties of a still higher order. He
never forgot that he was the Bishop as well as the Sovereign of Rome. The
Romans, although inhabiting the Holy City, like all other people, stood in
need of the instructions and warnings of religion. The Pope was aware,
besides, that bad habits prevailed, such as profane swearing, luxurious
living, the neglect of parents in the training of their children. The
knowledge of such things grieved him exceedingly. He now resolved to have
recourse to a measure which was as striking as it was unexpected. In the
trying days of the Crusaders, and moved by their zeal for the safety of
Christendom, the Popes of an earlier time had addressed, as the ministers
of God, immense public assemblages. No Pope, however, had appeared in the
pulpit since Gregory VII. The Church of St. Andrew, where the eloquent
Father Ventura was accustomed to preach, was selected, but, lest there
should be too great a crowd, no notice of the Pope’s intention was
published. At half-past three o’clock on a Sunday afternoon, just as the
congregation were expecting to see Abbate Ventura enter the church, the
Pope himself made his appearance. The sermon was not a long one; but it
was memorable, and to be long remembered. “In this city,” said the Holy
Father, “which is the centre of Catholicity, there are men who insult the
holy name of God by profane and blasphemous language. On all those who now
hear me I lay this charge: publish everywhere that I have no hope for such
men. They cast in the face of Heaven the stone which will, one day, recoil
upon them and crush them. I would also most earnestly exhort you as
regards the duty of fasting. Many fathers and mothers come to me in order
to impart to me the sorrow which they experience in considering the
melancholy fact which cannot escape their observation, that the demon of
uncleanness exercises a destructive empire over the youth of Rome. Our
Lord Himself in the Holy Gospel assures us that, by no other means than
prayer and fasting, is it possible to overcome this demon who poisons the
sources of life and works the ruin of immortal souls.” The sermon,
although comparatively short, spoke of the chief obligations of a
Christian life. It was delivered with great unction, and the Holy Father
concluded with a fervent prayer for Rome and the Roman State. “Look down
upon this vine, O Lord, which Thy right hand hath planted! Look upon it in
mercy, and remove from it the hand of iron which weighs so heavily upon
it. Pour into the bosoms of the rising generations those two most precious
attributes of youth,—modesty and a teachable mind. Listen to my prayer, O
Lord, and bestow upon this congregation, on this city and all people, Thy
most precious blessings.”

Appropriate gesticulations added to the power of words. Another influence,
also, came in aid,—an influence peculiar to Pius IX.,—that indescribable
expression of goodness which lighted up his countenance as he spoke. The
people, whose feelings are naturally fine, were moved even to tears and
sighs. The occasion itself was well calculated to move the minds of a
Catholic audience. It was an element, no doubt, which, together with the
eloquence of the preacher, and the power of apostolic preaching, could not
fail to produce a profound impression. And, indeed, the whole congregation
were filled with enthusiasm.

Whilst thus finding consolation in the exercise of his sublime ministry,
the benevolent Pontiff was destined to encounter formidable attacks on the
part of political opponents. On the one hand, the ultra-Conservatives, who
held in abomination the mere idea of reform, endeavored by every means to
confound in the popular mind the beneficial measures which the Pope was
introducing into the economy of the State, with radical changes in the
most essential points of religion itself. The Socialists, on the other
hand, studied to excite the people and increase their impatience by
misrepresenting all the acts of the ministry, and causing it to be
believed that, by the delay which was unavoidable in labors of such
magnitude and importance, they were only abusing the confidence of the
sovereign and betraying the cause of reform. Some remains of chivalry
might have been expected in the ranks of the high Conservative party. But,
alas! too truly the age of chivalry was gone, and these sticklers for the
usages of a bygone age, only showed by their modes of proceeding that they
clung to an empty and inanimate form of things from which life and
substance had departed. As was related at the time, they stepped down to
the depths of calumny and published a cruel libel, in which the Holy
Father was held up to the scorn of all right-thinking men as an
“intruder,” “an enemy of Religion,” “the chief of _Young Italy_.” In the
estimation of such men discretion is the better part of valor. But whilst
they fought with the coward’s weapon—slander—they could not wholly escape
detection. Their libel was seized in the hands of a _colporteur_. This
wretched man offered to disclose the names of the libellers. Pius IX.
declined his offer, generously forgave him the offence, and even bestowed
upon him a sum of money in order to induce him and enable him to give up
his nefarious trade.

Meanwhile, there was at Rome a still more numerous body who sustained the
policy of the Holy Father. These friends of order, it is most pleasing to
record, made every effort to aid him in carrying out the measures of
reform which he contemplated. This influential body of faithful and
patriotic citizens, who can never be sufficiently praised, organized a
considerable force which kept the populace in check. This party consisted,
chiefly, of the burghers of Rome. They were encouraged and headed by the
higher nobles, such as the Borghese, the Rospigliosi, the Riguano, the
Piombino, and the Aldobrandini. Acting as a noble guard, they were able to
preserve order in the city, when, on occasion of celebrating the memorable
amnesty, it was seriously threatened by the factions. They were, indeed, a
party of reform, order-loving and law-abiding. It can never be
sufficiently regretted that, unaccustomed as they were to political
turmoil, they knew not how to keep their ground in the face of new dangers
which arose so soon.

The health of Cardinal Gizzi had begun to decline. The toils of office
were not calculated to improve it, and so he relinquished a post which
was, every day, becoming more onerous and difficult. There was another
Cardinal whose high character had endeared him to the Romans. Ability and
learning were not his only qualities. He was energetic and resolute,
faithful, straightforward and self-sacrificing. When the dread scourge of
cholera swept over his episcopal city and impoverished his people,
Cardinal Ferretti gave up for the relief of the sufferers all that he
possessed—money, clothing, plate, furniture, and remained in his empty
Palace, as destitute as a pauper. To this eminent Cardinal Pius IX.
appealed, offering him the high office which Gizzi could no longer hold.
On 26th July, 1847, the new Chief Minister arrived at Rome. He was warmly
received. The citizens gave him an ovation.

Shortly before his arrival, news had come to Rome that Austrian troops
were marching on Ferrara, a city of the Papal States. They were, indeed,
entitled, by the treaty of 1815, to occupy this fortress, as well as that
of Camachio. They could urge no better excuse for a display of military
power in the Pope’s States on occasion of the threatened disturbance of
16th July. This parade was only the prelude to further military
operations. On 13th August, General Count Auesperg occupied all the posts
of Ferrara. Whatever may be said as to treaty rights, this was,
undoubtedly, an insult to the Papal flag. The most energetic remonstrances
were immediately addressed to the Cabinet of Vienna. Austria endeavored to
justify her proceeding by a wide interpretation of the right of
occupation, by alleging the disturbed state of the public mind at Rome,
and by insisting on certain precedents. But to no purpose. The diplomacy
of Ferretti contended successfully with that of Metternich. And Austria,
yielding with the best grace possible to the representations of the Holy
Father, evacuated Ferrara.

The Pope, far from allowing himself to be disquieted by the presence in
his States of Croat troops, proceeded with the work of reform which he had
undertaken, slowly, indeed, but with energy and perseverance. In these
labors of the statesman, he was ably aided by the Cardinal Minister
Ferretti. A promise was given that before the end of the year two great
political and administrative institutions would be called into existence.
Accordingly, so early as the month of October, two State papers appeared,
the one instituting the municipality of Rome, which was to be called _the
Senate_, the other decreeing an assembly that should be, to a certain
extent, representative, under the name of _Council of State_ (consulta).
The City of Rome had not, for a long time, possessed, like the other
cities of the Pontifical States, municipal institutions. It was now
ordained that there should be a City Council, consisting of the mayor (in
the language of the country, _Senator_), with eight colleagues and a
hundred other members. This is not unlike our own municipal magistracy,
wherein are the mayor, aldermen and common councilmen or councillors. With
us, however, aldermen could hardly be called the colleagues of the mayor.
This functionary stands alone in his worshipful dignity. The first
nomination of the members of this municipal body was reserved to the Pope.
But it was appointed that, ever after, it should be chosen by free popular
election. None will question the wisdom and liberality of the language in
which the Pope expressed himself in the preamble to the new law. “When we
were called by Divine Providence to govern the Church and the State, our
paternal solicitude was at once directed to every portion of the Dominion
subjected to our Government, but especially towards the capital, the chief
of all our cities, to which it is consoling for us to devote our watchings
and our labors. What was, above all, important, and what we think will be
a subject of joy to all, is the restoration to this beloved city of its
ancient glory of communal representation, by granting to it a deliberative
council. The study of this project has been particularly pleasing to us,
and we have not allowed ourselves to be discouraged by any difficulty.”
This important decree was published on the 2nd day of October, 1847. On
the following day there was a national festival. The people were in
raptures, and loudly demonstrated their gratitude to the Holy Father for
an institution which recalled the glorious associations of ancient Rome,
and restored it to its place and rank among modern cities. The
Cardinal-prince Altieri was named president. He opened the first session
of the municipal council by a speech which was marked by the homage paid
therein to Pius IX. “He considered not,” said the orator, “whether the
work be difficult. He sees its utility and hesitates not.” The council
almost unanimously elected to the post of Senator (Mayor) Prince Corsini,
who was, at that time, devoted to the policy of the reforming Pontiff.

A measure of more general importance now occupied the attention of the
Sovereign Pontiff and his Ministers. The Council of State (consulta) was
established. It was a deliberative assembly. It was not sovereign, but
possessed the right to advise the Sovereign. There were twenty-four
councillors. The President was a Cardinal Legate. Each councillor was
chosen by the Pope from a list of three candidates presented by each
Province of the Pontifical States. The Council was divided into four
sections, whose office it was to prepare laws relating to the Departments
of Finance, Home Affairs, Public Works and Justice. It was the duty also
of these four Committees to hold a general meeting on certain days, in
order to take counsel together on the draughts of proposed laws which they
had separately prepared. On the 25th November, 1847, the National
Representatives met for the first time. Their place of meeting was the
throne-room of the Quirinal Palace. Cardinal Antonelli was the first
President. The proceedings were commenced, and most appropriately, by a
respectful address to the Holy Father. It was well known to Pius IX. that
the creation of this institution had awakened exaggerated and premature
hopes in the minds of a portion of the people, and that some of the
Deputies were not disinclined to encourage them. So he considered it
necessary, in his reply, to define, in a very decided manner, the true
character and functions of the National Representative Body. “It is
chiefly,” said he, “in order that I may become better acquainted with the
wants of my people, and that I may better provide for the exigencies of
the State, that I have called you together. I am prepared, in time, to do
everything, without, however, diminishing the Sovereignty of the
Pontificate. That man would be grievously mistaken who should behold in
the functions which devolve on you, or in your institution itself, his own
Utopias, or the commencement of anything incompatible with the Pontifical
Sovereignty.” In concluding, he spoke in a still more determined tone, and
reproached his people with the ingratitude which they had already begun to
manifest. “There are some persons who, having nothing to lose, wish for
disorder and insurrection, and go so far as to make a bad use even of our
concessions.”

There was in this Council a commencement of representative government.
Deputies from the Provinces assembled—deliberated. They heard a Speech
from the Throne. They presented an address in reply. In due time this germ
of constitutional monarchy would be developed. But the Sovereign would not
proceed rashly. The full measure of reform, he was well aware, must, like
all great works, be the fruit of time, of much labor and patient
consideration.

Count Rossi, the French Ambassador, considered that it was already time to
introduce a lay element into the political administration of the Papal
States. The Holy Father, accordingly, after due consideration, appointed
some distinguished laymen to the Ministry. In so doing, no doubt, he
sacrificed time-honored usage; but not so much to the wishes of his
friends and allies, as to the spirit of the age, which, whether right or
wrong, will have men of the world to deal with the world.

Italy, although divided into several States, looked to Rome as its centre
and its capital. Whatever occurred in the city of the Popes was at once
known throughout the whole peninsula. Such important and unlooked-for
measures of reform as were now carried into effect could not fail, as they
were communicated, to affect deeply the Italian mind. Public opinion was
aroused. The most profound sympathy was everywhere felt and expressed.
Liberty had revived under the auspices of Religion. It had emanated as a
new blessing from the Cross. The Chief of Religion, the Father of the
Faithful, had become its High Priest. His name was held in benediction.
His praises were proclaimed not only by the Italian people, but also by
every civilized nation. It was no longer violence—no longer
insurrection—that contended for liberty. The greatest of all sovereigns
had announced its reign. It was not indebted to any secret society. It
relied upon society at large. It rested secure, so men believed, on the
firm foundation of enlightened public opinion. Philosophy, as represented
by M. Cousin, hailed its advent. The statesmanship of France, headed by M.
Thiers, extolled its champion. Protestantism, forgetting its illiberal
prejudices, re-echoed with enthusiasm the warm _vivats_ of reformed Italy.
Pius IX., meanwhile, enjoyed his reward,—not in the flattering echo of the
thousand voices which sounded his praise, but in the one still voice of
approving conscience. He was consoled, moreover, by a profound conviction
that the cause which he had taken in hand would, one day, prove
triumphant.

With every new concession came the desire for further change. The people
generally were satisfied, even grateful, and they frequently expressed
their gratitude in the most sincere and enthusiastic manner. They were
not, however, all sincere. There were not wanting those who studied only
to make available for their own ends the tumultuous gatherings and warm
expressions of satisfaction in which the people so often indulged. This
was the Socialist faction. It aimed at nothing less than to establish a
Republic—a _Republic, one and undivided_, or, as it has been called,
because of its cruel and blood-thirsty character, the _Red Republic_.

With a view to the establishment of such a Republic, the men of this party
took advantage of the numerous assemblages, which could not now either be
regulated or diminished in number, to gain new friends, to increase
popular excitement, and so to discipline it as to bring it, through some
favorite demagogues, under their control. It will shortly be seen with
what a dangerous weapon they were arming themselves. It can scarcely be
doubted that but for the machinations of these factionists and their
influence with the masses, which was every day increasing, Pius IX. would
have succeeded in establishing a system of government as constitutional
and as free as was at all compatible with his own rights as sovereign.
These rights he was not at liberty to abandon. No greater measure of
political freedom could be reasonably desired by any people. From all
history it is manifest that liberty is as fully enjoyed, and established
on a more secure and permanent basis, under the fostering auspices of a
constitutional monarchy, than in the best regulated republics. Such a form
of government may indeed be said to be more republican than monarchical.
But although possessing many properties, and all the popular advantages of
a Republic, it does not cease to be a monarchy. The kingly dignity still
remains with all that appertains to it, and is an essential element of its
constitution. Such was the monarchy that Pius IX. desired to retain, and
which he was bound in conscience, he believed, never to relinquish. That
in this he was sincere his high character bears witness. Never was there a
less selfish sovereign, or a man of more upright mind and sounder
judgment. No prince ever held less to prerogative. Essential rights he was
firmly resolved to maintain, whilst he never would have shrunk from any
legitimate concession. Whatever was adapted to the time and the
circumstances of his country, useful to his people, and conformable to a
well-informed and sound public opinion, he was prepared to introduce into
the economy of the State. But, the complete secularization of public power
in the Pontifical States, in other words, the establishment of a Republic
based on anti-Christian principles,—the _Red Republic_,—could never for a
moment be contemplated. What may be called the consultative Government had
just entered upon the discharge of its duties, when Pius IX. resolved to
render it completely representative. This important resolution was the
subject of frequent conversations with M. Rossi, at the time ambassador at
Rome of the French constitutional monarchy. M. Rossi wrote as follows, to
his government, in January, 1848:


    “It is a problem which, after much reflection, I consider may be
    solved. The divisions of sovereignty in the world have been
    numerous and diverse. And as they lasted for ages, we might even
    try one more, beginning by separating entirely the temporal from
    the spiritual—the Pope from the King. Only it would be necessary
    to leave wholly to the spiritual, and the clergy, matters which
    with us are mixed.”


Not many days later, the ambassador imparted to his government this more
decided intelligence: “The Pope will shortly grant the constitution. It is
his serious and constant study.” M. Rossi earnestly recommended that there
should be no delay in adopting this important measure. It would, he
conceived, put an end to agitation,—a most desirable result, surely, when
it is considered how fatal to the cause of liberty and reform might any
day become the too frequent tumultuous assemblages which, once
constitutional government was established, would necessarily cease.

The Pope held the same idea as the eminent diplomatist. The great idea was
as yet, however, far from being realized. A new and most serious
difficulty unexpectedly arose. On the 5th of March, 1848, a courier
arrived, bearing the startling intelligence that the constitutional
monarchy of France had fallen, and that a Republic was established at
Paris. No greater misfortune could have befallen Rome. The public
excitement was increased beyond measure, and exaggerated hopes were
enkindled that could never be fulfilled. The people, at first enthusiastic
only, were now turbulent. The events in France exercised a still more
fatal influence. They caused anarchy to prevail. The extreme or Socialist
Republicans, whom the proclamation of the constitution would have
paralyzed, were now in the ascendant. What had been done at Paris, they
conceived, might be done at Rome. And they induced the inexperienced
multitude to share their conviction. Such belief was only an idle and a
culpable dream. For surely it could not be guiltless to resolve on
sacrificing thousands on thousands of precious lives for an Utopia,—a
system that could never be realized. Events have shown that in France
itself, which was entirely free to make whatever political arrangement it
pleased, a Republic was not possible, even such a Republic as was
established at the downfall of the citizen monarchy, in preference to the
Red Republic. How, then, should it be possible to build up at Rome an
extreme system in opposition to the views and wishes of the whole
Christian world,—in opposition even to the people of Rome themselves, who,
when free from undue excitement, were the loyal supporters of the
sovereign who had already introduced into the economy of the State so many
liberal institutions—institutions that were in perfect harmony with their
ideas, and admirably adapted to the exigencies of the times? There was no
need, as yet, that the Catholic nations should come to the aid of their
Chief. It was necessary only to appeal, in defence of his sovereignty,
_from Rome drunk to Rome sober_,—from Rome intoxicated with unwonted
draughts of liberty to Rome in its normal state—to Rome, cool, and calm,
and intellectual, even as in the days of her ancient glory, when her sages
and grave senators sat by her gates sorrowing but dignified in their
defeat. With the like countenance ought modern Rome to have met the tide
of Socialist invasion, which every successive endeavor to establish the
Red or Communist Republic proves to be more destructive than the war of
mighty legions, which can only cast down material walls.

A Socialist Republic was impossible at Rome, the city of the Popes. It
never could have held its ground against the sound principle which
universally prevailed throughout the Pontifical States. Nor would it ever
have been able to obtain the countenance, or even the recognition, of the
European governments. Not France and Austria only; every other Catholic
nation as well would have exerted all their influence against it. Nor in
doing so would they have acted unwisely or unjustly. Had not Rome been the
residence of their Chief Pastor, that great historic city would have
ceased long ago to exist, or would be known only as an insignificant
village, scarcely perceptible on the map of Europe. How often has not the
celebrated city been rescued from destruction by the direct agency of the
Popes? How long have they not governed it with wisdom and blessed it with
prosperity? If there be any such thing as prescriptive right, undoubtedly
it is theirs. If there be any right better founded and stronger than that
of conquest, such right belongs unquestionably to the saviors of Rome.
They have saved it for the Christian world, for mankind, for the Church.
It is no man’s property. It cannot be let, like a paltry farm, to those
who shall bid the highest, in vain compromises and delusive hopes of
liberty. Should the Roman people, of their own free will, pretend to give
themselves away,—to sell themselves to a faction whose subversive
principles they abhor, their forefathers of all preceding ages would
protest against their base degeneracy; the children of the generations to
come would curse their memory; all reflecting men of the present time
would accuse them of black ingratitude,—ingratitude to the mighty dead
among their Pontiffs, to whom they are indebted for their very name, their
city’s fame, its honored State, its very existence in modern times;
ingratitude, above all, to that ruler who offered them, who bestowed upon
them, liberty, and who would have gladly rescued them in his day from
tyranny,—the tyranny of faction,—even as his predecessors, in bygone
times, snatched them from the cruel grasp of barbarism.

Pius IX. had made up his mind to institute thoroughly representative and
constitutional government. And this was all that the Roman people, as yet,
desired. They were only anxious that the views of the Pontiff should be
speedily carried into effect. Accordingly, Prince Corsini, the Senator
(Mayor), and the eight principal members of the Municipal Council, were
commissioned to make known their wishes to the Pope. His reply was
dignified and candid. In declaring his intention to grant the constitution
which they asked for, he took care to intimate in the most decided manner
that he was not making a concession to the urgency of the moment, but
accomplishing his premeditated purpose. “Events,” said he, “abundantly
justify the request which you address to me in the name of the Council and
Magistracy of Rome. All are aware that it is my constant study to give to
the Government the form which appears to me to be most in harmony with the
times. But, none are ignorant, at the same time, of the difficulties to
which he is exposed, who unites in his own person two great dignities,
when endeavouring to trace the line of demarcation between these two
powers. What, in a secular Government, may be done in one day, in the
Pontifical can only be accomplished after mature deliberation. I flatter
myself, nevertheless, that the preliminary labours having been completed,
I shall be able, in a few days, to impart to you the result of my
reflections, and that this result will meet the wishes of all reasonable
people.”

On the 14th of March, accordingly, was published _the fundamental statute
for the temporal government of the Holy See_, and so was inaugurated
constitutional rule in the most complete and straightforward manner which
it is possible to conceive.

The constitution was framed according to the model of the French Liberal
Monarchy of 1830, so modified as to render it capable of being adapted to
the Pontifical Government. Under its provisions there were a Ministry
which was responsible, and two Houses of Parliament, one of which was
elective, and the other composed of members who should hold their
appointment during their lifetime. To the Council of State belonged the
framing of laws to be afterwards submitted to the votes of the two
Chambers.

In all constitutional monarchies, the assent of the sovereign is
necessary, in order to give the force of law to measures voted by
Parliament. So, under the constitution promulgated at Rome by Pius IX.,
the College of Cardinals were constituted a permanent council, whose
office it was to sanction finally the decisions of the Legislative
Chambers. Such, in substance, was the statute by which the Pontifical
States became undeniably constitutional. A few days later the Ministry was
named. Three-fourths of their number were laymen. Cardinal Antonelli was
appointed President or First Minister. And thus the constitution was no
sooner framed than it came into operation, so anxious was Pius IX. to
advance the interests and meet the wants and wishes of his people.

Now, one would say, gratitude only could await the Pontiff. But no! at the
moment when, of all others, he was entitled to rely on the devotedness of
his people, a new and great difficulty arose.

By the diplomacy of 1815, at the close of the great European War, certain
portions of Italy had been left subject to German rule. By war only, some
Italians imagined, could this evil be removed. This was an extravagant
idea. War could only raise up new enemies to the cause of Italy and that
regeneration which appeared to be so near at hand. Diplomacy would have
served them better. What it had done at one time, under pressure of the
most trying circumstances, it would have been ready to achieve when
circumstances were changed, and imperatively demanded a new order of
things.

In the new emergencies that had arisen, the learning and ability of
statesmen ought, at least, in the first instance, to have been appealed
to. As between individuals, it is reasonable that all peaceful means of
adjusting a quarrel should be employed, so, in the greater affairs of
nations, all the arts of statesmanship ought to be had recourse to before
resort is had to bayonets and blood. How successful such a course would
have proved, and how beneficial to the cause of Italian liberty, is more
than sufficiently shown by the great result which diplomacy obtained, when
Austria, insisting on treaty rights, displayed the flag of war at Ferrara.
In that case, no doubt, the Pope was the chief diplomatist. But would he
not have been so, likewise, when there was question, not of one city only,
but of many of the greatest cities and best provinces of Italy? It is not
to be supposed, that in these more momentous circumstances he would have
found “the Barbarians” more hard to deal with. Austria, indeed, was so
barbarous as to ignore that exquisite refinement of modern times, which
despises religion and its ministers; and so she would have shown, as of
old, her reverence for the Pontiff, by withdrawing, at his request, her
soldiers from Italian soil.

The Italians, however, did not think so. They would have war, cost what it
would. The people even of the Papal States, whose august Chief could have
conquered without war, were bent on the same fatal purpose. They were
wholly under the influence of the Socialist agitation, and no wiser
counsel could be made to prevail.

It was decided among the popular leaders that the question of war should
be agitated in the greatest assembly which it was possible to gather
together. The Coliseum was appointed as the place of meeting, and it was
destined to present an unwanted spectacle, a grand but ill-omened scene.
All Rome, it may be said, was congregated in the ancient arena, the
favorite tribunes at their head. These demagogues were determined that the
question of war should be settled by acclamation, hoping thus to influence
the Sovereign Pontiff to induce him to abandon his policy of neutrality by
this imposing display of opinion and excitement, by so much popular
enthusiasm, by such intoxication, so to say, of patriotism. At an early
hour the vast arena was already crowded. All orders of the State were
there—Nobles, Burghers, Soldiers, Princes—everybody. Priests even came in
tolerable numbers to swell the crowd, and monks of every order,
ecclesiastics of every college, members of every congregation. Such was
the immense open air assemblage in which the question of the new crusade
was to be solemnly discussed. It would have been a grand and noteworthy
spectacle, had it not been arranged beforehand by skilful leaders who were
adepts in the art of getting up revolutionary displays. In the great
assembly there may have been sincerity. In the chief actors there was
none. Such a spontaneous expression of public sentiment, if really such,
would, indeed, have been imposing—grand. Viewed only as a theatrical
performance of parts learned to order—and it was nothing more—it was
deserving of nothing but contempt. There was in this display, besides, a
sinister and melancholy feature—a set of actors practising on the popular
mind to-day, in order to discover what they might safely attempt
to-morrow.

Near the tribune which overlooks the arena were ranged all those agitators
who were destined to become, at a later period, so notorious in the
commotions of the time. Among them was observed Padre Gavazzi, a Barnabite
monk, whose puerile vanity made him aspire to distinction, and whose
career was already marked by pretentious eloquence, a bombastic style,
confused ideas, and a mind still undecided as to the limits of orthodoxy,
which, a little later, he stepped beyond. He was the preacher of _the
crusade_. Next came the shepherd poet, Rosi; Prince Canino’s Secretary,
Masi; a young French monk of the order of Conventualists, Dumaine;
Generals Durando and Ferrari; the journalist, Sterbini, afterwards so
fatally popular; and, of course, the demagogue, Cicerruacho, who had been,
at first, enthusiastic in the cause of the Pope, but who now burned for
war, and, ere long, imparted to the revolution a character of fitful
fanaticism and absurd sympathies. The day was spent in magniloquent
addresses, which affected the style of ancient types, urgent exhortations
to war, poetical orations, rounds of applause, rapturous demonstrations.
The result was, lists for the enrolment of volunteers; the establishment
in the different quarters of the city of tables for receiving patriotic
offerings, and a threatening demonstration against the Quirinal Palace,
where it was intended to force the Pope to bless the colours for the
expedition against Austria.

The movement was now beyond all control. The orders of the Pope were
treated with a sort of respect, but not obeyed. The spirit of rebellion
was abroad, although the people still made a show of reverence. They were
no sooner from the presence of the Pontiff than they transgressed his most
sacred commands. Pius IX. had distinctly specified, when he authorized the
enrolment and the departure of volunteers, that it was his intention and
his will that the expedition should be exclusively defensive; that it
should protect the territory, but avoid passing the frontier. The leaders,
notwithstanding, adding perfidy to rebellion, made use of the Pontiff’s
name in order to deceive the people. General Durando had no sooner arrived
at Bologna than he issued a proclamation, in which, falsifying the Pope’s
wishes, he adduced his authority in order to encourage the war.
“Radetsky,” said he, “fights against the cross of Christ. Pius IX. has
blessed your swords together with those of Charles Albert. This war of
civilization against barbarism is not merely national, it is a Christian
war. With the cross and by the cross, we shall be victorious. God wills
it.”

Nothing could have tended more completely to compromise the character of
the Pontiff. It became necessary, accordingly, to publish the Encyclical
Letter of 29th April, 1848. “Men are endeavouring,” said the Holy Father,
in this admirable document, “to disseminate suspicions that are injurious
to the temporal administration of our States. It is our duty to prevent
the scandal that might thus be given to the simple and unreflecting.” He
then proceeds to declare that he is resolved to expose clearly and to
proclaim loudly the origin of all the facts of his Government. He refers
to the memorandum of 1831, which contained the collective counsels of the
European Cabinets to the Apostolic See, recommending the necessary
reforms. Some of these reforms were adopted by Gregory XVI. Circumstances
and the danger of the times caused others to be deferred. Pius IX.
considered that it was his duty to complete what his predecessor had
begun. He does not disclaim having taken the initiative on certain other
points. He had pardoned extensively, and he congratulates himself on this
clemency. He repels the calumny which would ascribe to the reforms which
he had inaugurated the general movement of Italy towards its
enfranchisement. This agitation he attributes to events that occurred
elsewhere, and which became facts of overwhelming influence for the whole
of Europe. Finally, he protests that he gave no other order to his
soldiers than that which required that they should defend the Pontifical
territory. He cannot be held responsible for the conduct of those amongst
his subjects who allow themselves to be swayed by the example of other
Italians. He had given his orders distinctly. They had been transgressed.
On the disturbing question of war with Austria, the _Encyclical_ bears the
following words:


    “They would have us declare war against Austria. We have thought
    it our duty to protest formally against such a resolution,
    considering that, notwithstanding our unworthiness, we hold on
    earth the place of Him who is the Author of peace—the Friend of
    charity; and that, faithful to the Divine obligations of our
    Apostolate, we embrace all countries, all peoples, all nations, in
    a like sentiment of paternal love. Nor can we refrain from
    repelling, in the face of all nations, the perfidious assertions
    of those who desire that the Roman Pontiff should be the chief of
    the government of a new republic, consisting of all the peoples of
    Italy.

    “Moreover, we earnestly exhort, on this occasion, these same
    Italian peoples to keep particularly on their guard against these
    treacherous counsels. We conjure them to remain devotedly attached
    to their princes, whose affection they have experienced. To act
    otherwise would be not only to fail in their duty, but also to
    expose Italy to discord and factions. As regards ourselves, we
    declare once more that all the thoughts and all the efforts of the
    Roman Pontiff tend only to increase every day the kingdom of Jesus
    Christ, which is the Church, and not to extend the limits of the
    temporal sovereignty, with which Divine Providence has endowed the
    Holy See, for the dignity and the free exercise of the sublime
    Apostolate.”


No better argument could have been offered in reply to those parties who
clamored so unreasonably for war. Nor could the Pontiff have vindicated
more eloquently the pacific character of that religion of which he is the
Chief and Representative on earth. At the same time, he offered wise and
authoritative counsel to the Italian nationalities. It was too late. The
voice of friendly warning remained unheard amidst the din of strife and
revolution. Need it be added—the cause of liberty perished for a time,
victimized by its own excess.

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.

Such matters as could not be agreed upon and embodied in the Concordat may
be gleaned from the allocution which Pius IX. addressed, at the time, to
the Cardinals. “Many things of the greatest importance still remain, in
regard to which the Plenipotentiaries could not come to an agreement, and
the omission of which awakens our most lively solicitude, and causes us
the utmost pain; for they concern, in the highest degree, the liberty of
the church, its rights, its essential principles, and the salvation of the
faithful in those Russian countries. We allude to that true and complete
liberty, which ought to be secured to the Christian people, of being able,
in regard to the things which relate to religion, to communicate, without
impediment, with this Apostolic See, the centre of Catholic unity and
truth, the Father and Master of all the Faithful. All men may understand
how deeply grieved we are, when they call to mind the multiplied appeals
which this Apostolic See has never ceased to cause to be heard at divers
times, in order to obtain free communication of the faithful, not only in
Russia, but also in other countries, where, in certain affairs of
religion, it is seriously impeded, to the great loss of souls. We would
speak of the property which ought to be restored to the clergy. We would
have removed from the Episcopal Consistories the lay person chosen by the
government, in order that, in these assemblies, the bishops may be able to
act with all liberty. We must advert to the law according to which mixed
marriages are not recognized as valid, until they have been blessed by a
Russo-Greek Catholic priest; and also to the liberty which Catholics ought
to possess of trying and judging their matrimonial causes, in eases of
mixed marriages, by a Catholic ecclesiastical tribunal. Finally, we would
allude to divers laws prevalent in Russia, which fix the age at which
religious professions may be made, which destroy entirely the schools that
are held in the houses of religious orders, which prevent the visits of
provincial superiors, which forbid and interdict conversion to the
Catholic faith.”

In this same allocution the Holy Father deplores the miserable state of
the illustrious Ruthenian nation, which, dispersed throughout the vast
countries of Russia, is, from various causes, exposed to great dangers as
regards salvation. Without bishops, they have none to guide them in the
paths of righteousness, none to administer to them spiritual succour, or
to warn them against the insidious approaches of heresy and schism. The
Holy Father is confident that the Latin priests will bestow all their care
and employ every available resource in affording spiritual aid to these
“most dear children.” “From our inmost soul,” concludes the venerable
Pontiff, “we exhort, earnestly and lovingly in the Lord, and urge the
Ruthenians themselves to remain faithful and steadfast in the unity of the
Catholic Church, or, if they have been so unfortunate as to abandon it, to
return to the bosom of their most loving mother, to have recourse to us,
who, with God’s assistance, will do whatever is best calculated to secure
their salvation.”

As regards some of these highly important matters, the wishes of the Holy
Father were acceded to by the Russian Emperor. The bishop of Kherson was
allowed a second suffragan. It was also regulated that matrimonial and
other ecclesiastical causes, whether in Russia proper or in the kingdom of
Poland, should, on appeal from a sentence pronounced by the ordinary, be
heard before the tribunal of the metropolitan, or before the more
neighboring bishop, in case of judgment having been first given by the
metropolitan. Such causes, in the event of final appeal, should be
referred to Rome—to the tribunal of the Apostolic See.

In considering, at some length, the Concordat with Russia, and the more
favorable terms by which it was followed, we learn what hopes may be
entertained as regards the spiritual well-being of the more numerous
Catholics, Armenians and others, who will now, in all probability, come
under the sway of Russia.(2)

(M23) The Society of the Holy Ghost had labored successfully in France,
the Indies, Canada, China, Acadia, or Nova Scotia, the islands, Miquelon
and St. Peter. In the countries referred to, there were bishops, vicars
apostolic, of this society, and several missionary priests. In Cayenne and
French Guiana, they maintained an apostolic prefect and twenty
missionaries apostolic. The troubles of the French revolution all but
extinguished this zealous and influential missionary society. It was
revived in the year 1848, under the auspices of Pius IX., and resumed its
labors under the title of Society of the Holy Ghost and the Immaculate
Heart of Mary. During the negotiations which led to the restoration of
this society, the Vicariate Apostolic of Madagascar became vacant by the
death of Bishop Dalton. Abbe Monnet, Superior of the Society of the Holy
Ghost, was appointed to succeed him, and Rev. Abbe Liebermann, a
distinguished convert from Judaism, was unanimously elected to the post of
superior-general of the two united societies. The labors of Abbe
Liebermann were crowned with complete success. In 1850, the Holy Father,
in order to confirm and perpetuate the fruit of so much apostolic labor,
erected three bishoprics—one in the low country of Guadeloupe, another at
Fort Francis, in Martinica, and a third at St. Denis, of Bourbon Island.
The eminent convert died in 1852, after having had the satisfaction to
behold such great developments of his missionary work. The death of the
first superior-general did not, by any means, retard the increase of the
new society. On the contrary, new blessings seemed to descend upon it.
Under the guidance of the second superior, the Abbe Schwindenhammer, who
had been the friend and confidential counsellor of the first, the society
came to be as an order of three choirs—Fathers, Friars, Sisters. To the
Rev. Fathers, who were missionaries apostolic, the Father of the great
Christian Family, Pius IX., assigned a field of labor, a hundred times
more extensive than the land which was promised of old to the children of
Israel—a territory from eleven to twelve hundred leagues in length, and
broad in proportion. The friars were lay missionaries, whose duty it was
to assist the Rev. Fathers, teach the neophytes the arts of Christian
civilization, and change the deserts, the wild forest lands and dismal
swamps, into smiling fields. A brother, who is a printer, has already
departed for those missions, carrying with him a complete set of types.
The sisters, in order to draw down the mercy of heaven on the negro lands,
devote themselves to prayer, works of charity and self-denial, perpetual
adoration of the Blessed Sacrament, and the continual offering of
themselves in sacrifice for the salvation of the souls that are most
neglected. They would even, if it were the call of heaven, repair to
Africa, and found there religious communities, in order to confirm the
good work commenced by the missionaries. So early as their first year,
1852, they had established two or three houses in France. This great
missionary society came into existence at a singularly opportune moment,
and none can tell what an important part it may bear in carrying the light
of Christianity into that benighted Africa which modern discovery, the
discovery of our age, the age of Pius IX., is now throwing open to the
many blessed influences of civilization.

In the early days of the Pontificate of Pius IX., the Guinea missions
extended over regions of negro-land nine hundred leagues from east to
west, and seven hundred leagues from north to south, with a coast-line of
eleven hundred leagues. These African countries are very populous; and
there are towns of 20,000, 30,000, and even 60,000 inhabitants. The
greatest barbarism prevails. With the exception of a few Mahometans in
Sanegambia, the people are idolators. They are also cannibals, and human
sacrifices are frequent. Polygamy is one of their vices, and those on the
sea coast of Guinea have learned many others from contact with Europeans,
such as hard drinking and all kinds of excess. Their women are in a
degraded condition, doing all the drudgery, and not being admitted to an
equality with their husbands. Notwithstanding all this, the missionaries
give them a high character. They bear pain with fortitude, and have a
horror of slavery, although so many of them are reduced to servitude by
greedy traders. A sea captain once offered a negro any amount of money, on
condition that he should become his slave. “All the gold your ship could
hold,” said the spirited African, “is no price for my liberty.” They are
very sensitive, grateful, and even affectionate towards those who befriend
them. To the missionaries they always showed hospitality; and the peaceful
explorer, Livingstone, and his friends generally met with the same
kindness. If it was otherwise with the adventurous discoverer, Stanley, he
owed the hostility with which he was often received by the African tribes
to the armed force by which he was accompanied, and his determination to
traverse their countries, whether they liked it or not. They listened
attentively to the missionaries, and this circumstance induced these
excellent persons to express the belief that, with proper precautions,
they may be induced to embrace the Christian faith. Many things have
occurred, in the course of this favored age, to encourage this hope for
the future welfare of so many millions of the human race. Science has
thrown its light into the hitherto dark regions of Central Africa, where
no European had, as yet, been able to penetrate. The petty and corrupting
traffic on the coasts will speedily expand into wide extended and
improving commerce. The slave trade is gradually diminishing, and must,
ere long, disappear under the blessed influences, more active than ever,
which are now at work; the whole church is moved by the edifying
narratives of zealous missionaries; and the countenance of the Apostolic
See is willingly bestowed on missionary effort. So, it is not too much to
say that, with such auspicious commencements in the age of Pius IX., the
days of some future Pontiff, at no very distant epoch, will be blessed to
behold Africa, so long neglected, happily, at length, brought within the
pale of Christianity and civilization.

The missionaries speak of a Prince, whose history, if related by less
trustworthy parties, could not fail to be considered fabulous. His
territory is situated on the river Gabon. He speaks English and French
fluently, as well as an African dialect called _Boulou_. He is a man of
gentle and polished manners, and possesses the self-control of the most
accomplished European. In point of sobriety, he is equal to the best of
Europeans. He never drinks intoxicating liquor, and forbids his children
to use it. He is beloved by his subjects, and respected by the neighboring
tribes, who hold with him commercial and friendly relations. He shows
great friendship to the missionaries, and takes great delight in assisting
them. A good bishop is also mentioned, whose horror of the slave trade was
such that he would not allow a negro to serve him. In addition to the
mission-house, which is a solid stone building, there is also a seminary,
where some of the native youth are educated for the duties of the
Christian priesthood. The aboriginal populations receive the bishop and
the heads of the missions with extraordinary honors. The salubrity of the
climate is favorably spoken of, being nowise inferior to that of France.
Everything appeared to favor the Guinea missions in the early years of the
Pontificate of Pius IX. With the aid of continued countenance and
encouragement, they cease not to be developed every day more and more
throughout the vast countries extending from Senegambia to the Equator. At
Joal and St. Mary of Gambia, there were flourishing missions so early as
1852. In 1850 M. L’Abbe Arlabosse founded a mission at Galam, 150 leagues
in the interior of Senegal. Another mission was successfully established
at Grand Bassam, in 1851. The printing press, already referred to, has
contributed powerfully to facilitate missionary work. Seven diverse
languages are now taught, viz.: Wolof, Serer, Saracole, Abule, Mpongue,
Bingue and Balu, or Boulou.

It is somewhat remarkable that in all the countries connected as colonies
with Great Britain, where Protestantism is so persistently adhered to,
there should prevail the greatest liberty as regards the exercise of the
Catholic religion. Thus, Cape Colony (Cape of Good Hope) was no sooner
transferred from the rule of Holland to that of Britain than the Holy
Father was enabled to extend his care to the Catholics of that remote
land. A bishop was appointed, and missions speedily established. There are
now three bishops, vicars apostolic, at Cape Town, Graham’s Town, Natal.
The islands Mauritius and Bourbon, each of which has a population of more
than 100,000 souls, share the solicitude of the church and its august
Head. They are not both equally favored by their civil rulers. The former
was annexed to Great Britain in 1810. The Holy Father provides for its
spiritual welfare, confiding its administration to a bishop and a
sufficient number of priests, all of whom receive salaries from the
government. The bishops hitherto have been members of the illustrious
order of St. Benedict, and some of them have enjoyed a high reputation in
the church, such as the learned and eloquent Bishop Morris, and the pious
and accomplished Bishop Collier. Bourbon Island, until of late, 1850, when
a bishop was appointed, had not been so fortunate. An eminent French
writer rather satirically remarks, that it would have to wait until France
ceded all her colonies to the British. There are, however, some priests
who, together with the bishop, minister to the spiritual wants of the
people. Great efforts have been made to establish missions in the large
and populous Island of Madagascar, which, according to geographers, is
1,000 miles in length.

The priests of the congregation of St. Vincent of Paul, as zealous now as
in the days of their illustrious founder, have penetrated into Abyssinia,
and are laboring to bring about a complete reconciliation of that once
eminently Christian nation to the church of Pius IX. The Æthiopian may
not, indeed, change his skin. But, according to the reports of the
missionaries, these people are changing their ideas, and giving proofs of
a disposition to return to the centre of Christian unity. Everywhere the
missionaries are received with kindness by princes and people, and favored
with a respectful hearing.

So great is the reverence of the nations of the Turkish Empire for the
character of the Pope, that one would say that he had a Concordat with
those nations and their chiefs. The legate of the Holy See, Archbishop
Auvergne, of Iconium, was received with the greatest honor by the
Sovereign of Ægypt, on occasion of his legation to that country and Syria.
A Catholic bishop was established at Alexandria, a city so intimately
associated with the memory of Saint Athanasius. His jurisdiction extends
over the Æthiopian countries, and this circumstance, considering their
relations in bygone ages with the Patriarchs of Alexandria, facilitates
their communion with the centre of unity. The Catholic bishop of Cairo,
assisted by thirty priests, so long ago as 1840, governed a flock of
nearly twenty thousand Copts of the ancient race of Ægypt. This body of
faithful Christians is daily increasing, by the adherence of other Copts
who had fallen into the Eutichyan heresy, more from want of instruction
than obstinacy. Nothing could surpass the generosity of the Khedive
towards the church. He presented to the Pope several marble columns, for
the restoration of the Basilica of St. Paul at Rome, and built for the
missionaries and sisters of St. Vincent de Paul a college, schools, and an
hospital in the city of Alexandria. At Tunis and Tripoli there are 7,000
Catholics, who are ministered to by nine priests of the order of St.
Francis. So early as 1840, Sisters of Charity went from France in order to
establish a community at Tunis, with the full concurrence of the Mussulman
government.

It is well known that as soon as a French colony was founded at Algiers, a
bishop was appointed. That African Christendom, so happily commenced,
still prospers, and extends its labors under the auspices of the august
Head of the church. It is consoling to observe that there are so many
nascent and even flourishing churches around the vast continent of Africa,
from Senegambia and Sierra Leone, by the Cape of Good Hope, the islands on
the south-east coast, Æthiopia and Ægypt, to the gates of Hercules. They
stand there as sentinels, ready to intimate the moment when the army of
the Cross may penetrate to the central continent, and conquer new kingdoms
to the cause of Christ. This is surely not too much to hope for in an age
when science has done so much, and commerce, that great handmaid of
civilization, is opening a highway to the darkest recesses of the wide and
long-lost heathen land.

(M24) Some serious-minded Catholics of Germany, dreading lest a national
or schismatical church should come to be established in that country,
conceived the happy idea of organizing, under the auspices of Pius IX.,
associations of laymen, who made it their duty to assist the clergy in
everything that could tend to improve morals and education, relieve
suffering, and restore the liberty and rights of the church, whilst they
studied, at the same time, to impart a spirit of faith to the pursuits of
science, the arts, and even the more humble occupations of trade. The
chief founder of these associations, Mr. Francis Joseph Busz, has written
a book, in which he shows what progress they had already made in 1851, and
what it still remained for them to accomplish. They continued to prosper,
and gave birth to associations of a like nature. Thus, at Cologne, Abbe
Kolping, Vicar of the Cathedral, founded a society of _Catholic
Companions_, the object of whose institute was, that they should spend
their leisure hours together in a Christian manner, and increase the
knowledge suited to their state of life, instead of losing their time,
their money and their morals in taverns. By the year 1852, such
associations of workmen had taken root in no fewer than twenty-five cities
in Germany.

Ever since the Thirty Years’ War, Germany had been distracted by religious
divisions. And yet the sectarian spirit does not appear to have been so
bitter as in some other countries. There was at least a desire for
religious peace and union. This is sufficiently expressed in the articles
of the treaty of Westphalia, which seems to have been intended as a
temporary arrangement for the pacification of the country, until peace
should be permanently established “by the agreement of all parties on
points of religion;” “until all controversies should be terminated by an
amicable and universal understanding.” “But if, which God forbid! people
cannot come to such amicable agreement on the controverted points of
religion, that this convention shall, nevertheless, be perpetual, and this
peace always continue.” Thus was the great treaty only a preliminary of
that lasting peace which can only be finally concluded when all minds and
hearts are united in the bonds of a common faith.

Whilst many good men labored to bring about this most desirable end,
others, such as Frederic of Prussia, and Joseph II. of Austria, by
ill-advised measures, and the countenance which they gave to unsound and
even irreligious doctrines, sowed the seeds of anarchy and unbelief, which
failed not, in due time, to produce fruit according to their kind, and
well-nigh accomplished the overthrow of society as well as that of the
Christian Church. The Austrian Emperor appears to have understood the
situation, and has generally maintained friendly relations with the Chief
Pastor. Germany, besides, has not been without able and pious men, who
have nobly sustained the cause of Truth and Union. Among these are
particularly deserving of honorable mention the Counts Stolberg, father
and son, whose writings have exercised a salutary influence. Whilst many
other noble laymen contributed, like them, to the regeneration of their
country, others, who were noble only in the ranks of literature and
science, vied in their efforts with the learned of noble birth. The elder
Gœrres headed the Catholic movement when Prussia so cruelly persecuted the
Archbishop of Cologne. So good an example was not lost on the son. The
younger Gœrres ceased not to emulate his worthy parent until the day of
his death, in 1852. Another distinguished author, who, by his writings,
greatly contributed to inform and encourage the Catholics of Germany, was
Mr. Francis Joseph Busz, already mentioned in connection with the
associations of Pius IX. He was a native of Baden, and an Aulic Counsellor
of the Grand Duke. He had also been a member of the great National
Parliament, which assembled at Frankfort for the purpose of restoring
German unity. The best-known of his works are: _Catholic Association of
Germany, and the necessity of reform in the instruction and education of
the Catholic secular clergy of Germany_. Some of his remarks may be
appropriately quoted, as they throw light on the present (1877-78) state
of Germany, and explain in great measure the extraordinary relations
between Church and State in the New German Empire: “The year 1848 proved
to us Germans that we could not rely on our governments. Both diplomacy
and bureaucracy are, and will remain, incorrigible. Our misery is, indeed,
great. Dissension prevails among our good citizens; the ill-meaning are
united. The Revolutionary War of 1848 and 1849 was a war of principles,
but without results. It was repressed, but not exhausted. It keeps alive
under the appearances by which it is concealed. The inexhaustible volcano
is at work amongst us, not only since 1848, but for three hundred years.
The abjuration of law, and even of all principle of right, is only the
form or expression; the essence of our malady is the denial of God and His
Church. The revolution is apostacy, the disunion of the nation is schism,
its anarchy Atheism. Whoever, like myself, has witnessed the public
negotiations of Germany, knows full well that the political struggle was,
for a long time, and particularly for the last three years, a contest
between the religious confessions. Such evolutions of evil possess a
certain life, although it be only that which leads to dissolution. They
spring one from another, and the new growth is always an improvement on
that by which it was preceded. I say it with sorrow. The strife of
political parties comes at last to be civil war, which, in its turn,
becomes a religious war, and such war soon grows to a war of unbelief
against Faith, of antichrist against Christ. The end is not uncertain.
Christ will be victorious; for it is appointed that the power of hell
shall not prevail.” In such a state of things the first duty of German
Catholics is that they be united. It is necessary that the German church
should remain in intimate union with the Holy Apostolic See, relinquishing
all pretension to be a separate National Church.

The aspiration of our author, so warmly expressed in 1850, that the German
Episcopate should, in mind and action, be one body in the nation, acting
and suffering together, appears, in these later days, to have been
realized. It was also his firm conviction that it behooved them to labor
to obtain complete liberty of action for the church, particularly in
forming an exemplary clergy, both in the lesser and greater seminaries, as
well as in those higher institutions, the German universities. Neither
should the laity fail in the fulfilment of all Christian and charitable
duties.

(M25) It is well known that, in ancient times, no countries in the world
were more Catholic than Spain and and Portugal. The great wealth and power
and glory to which they attained was, one would say, a mark of Heaven’s
approbation. Wealth, however, is a dangerous possession. In the countries
referred to it induced corruption and degeneracy. Principles of anarchy
came to be disseminated, devolution on revolution followed. The authority
of the Chief Pastor was resisted. The ministers of religion and the
religious orders were treated with contempt—were persecuted in lands where
they had been so long cherished and revered. The children of a corrupt
nobility were sent to govern the provinces and churches of the falling
Empire. The result was, it is superfluous to say, the decline of
religion—the overthrow of the once flourishing churches of Spain and
Portugal. And yet were they not destined to perish wholly. A remnant was
left; and it was appointed that this remnant should take root and fructify
in a soil which trials and persecution had prepared for a new growth. It
was reserved for the age of Pius IX. to behold Spain and Portugal renew
their early fervor. They have returned to the centre of Catholic unity;
and in both countries arrangements have been entered into for staying the
spoliation of ecclesiastical property, appointing learned and edifying
bishops to the vacant Sees, restoring seminaries and clerical education.
The clergy, who had been infected more or less by the Jansenist heresy,
now purified in the crucible of persecution, have resumed the sound
doctrines and the heroic virtues of the apostolic men who will ever be the
brightest glory of their land—Thomas of Villa-Nova, Francis Xavier,
Ignatius of Loyola, Peter of Alcantara, Francis Borgia, St. John of the
Cross, and Saint Theresa. The Holy See, with the concurrence of the
Spanish Government, has organized anew the churches of Spain. In the
consistory of 3rd July, 1848, Pope Pius IX. instituted bishops for the
following Sees: Segovia and Calahorra, in Old Castile; Tortosa and Vich,
in Catalonia; Porto Rico, in North America; Cuenca and St. Charles de
Aucud de Chilœ, in South America. This last-named diocese, at the time of
the appointment, was newly erected.

(M26) From the epoch of the “Reformation,” when the ancient Catholic
hierarchy of England, which had been so successfully founded by St.
Augustine and the disciples of St. Columba, was swept away, until the year
1850, the church was missionary, and governed, as missions usually are, by
prefects, who may be arch-priests, or vicars-apostolic, with episcopal
titles. Until the year 1625, the English mission was under the guidance of
an arch-priest. In that year Pope Gregory II. appointed a vicar-apostolic
for all England. Circumstances appearing favorable to the church after the
accession of King James II., Pope Innocent XI. placed the English mission
under the spiritual charge of four vicars-apostolic, who were bishops,
with titles taken from churches, _in partibus infidelium_. The country
was, at the same time, divided into four missionary districts—the London,
the Eastern, the Midland and the Western. The numbers of Catholics having
greatly increased during the early portion of the present century, the
Holy Father, Gregory XVI., took into consideration the new requirements
that had arisen, by letters apostolical, of date 3rd July, 1840, made a
new ecclesiastical division of the English counties, and doubled the
number of vicars-apostolic. There were now eight districts under the
spiritual jurisdiction of these vicars-apostolic, who governed and were
governed by the wise constitutions given to their predecessors by Pope
Benedict XIV. Meanwhile, the state of the Catholics of England was rapidly
improving. Relieved of so many of their disabilities by the gracious Act
of 1829, there were no longer any serious legal impediments to the
legitimate development of their church. It grew accordingly, and by the
year 1840 had become comparatively flourishing. It possessed many stately
churches, eight or ten important colleges, the buildings of which were of
a high order of architecture; numerous charitable institutions, each of
considerable extent; over six hundred public churches or chapels, and
eight hundred clergy. Many of the most ancient families of the land were
among its devoted adherents, and it also claimed a not unequal share of
the intellect and learning, the literary and scientific distinction of the
country. Many of the British colonies had already been favored, and not
without the full concurrence of the Imperial government, with that more
suitable and normal state of church government, which depends on the
institution of bishops in ordinary. Was the Mother Country, the seat of
empire, whose church was so much more developed than that of any of the
colonies, alone to be deprived of so great an advantage? Were the
Catholics of England, who were certainly in no respect behind the rest of
their fellow-countrymen, even in an age of light and improvement, to rest
satisfied with a primitive state of things, when a broader, a more free,
and in every way a more beneficial system of spiritual rule was within
their reach? The Chief Pastor was willing to inaugurate such rule,
provided that he found, on examination, that it was suited to the
spiritual state and religious wants of the Catholic people. There was
nothing, besides, in the legislation of the country that could be called
an impediment to a new and better condition of ecclesiastical government.

(M27) For some time the Catholics of England had desired that their church
should enjoy the advantage of being governed by bishops in ordinary. So
early as the year 1834, they petitioned the Holy See to this effect. At
that time, however, nothing was concluded. In 1847 the vicars-apostolic
assembled in London, and deputed two of their number to bear a petition to
the Holy Father, earnestly praying for the long-desired boon. It was
craved, not as a mark of triumphant progress, far less as an act of
aggression on the law-established church, but simply in order to afford
greater facility for the administration of the affairs of the church, and
more effectually to promote the edification of the Catholic people. The
existing code of government had been adopted about a hundred years before,
when heavy penal laws, together with endless disabilities, were in force,
and religious liberty was unknown. Part of this code had been repealed by
Pope Gregory XVI. But it still tended to embarrass rather than to aid and
guide. Since Emancipation, in 1829, the Catholic church had greatly
expanded, and the bishops, vicars-apostolic, were in a situation of great
difficulty, as they were most anxious to be guarded against arbitrary
decisions by fixed rules, whilst as yet none were provided for them. No
doubt the system of church government by vicars-apostolic could have been
amended and made more suitable to the altered circumstances of the church.
But it would have been necessarily complicated, and at best could only
have been a temporary arrangement. It was thought expedient, therefore,
that the ordinary mode of church government should be extended to the
Catholic church in England, in as far as was compatible with its social
position. It was, accordingly, necessary that there should be a hierarchy.
The canon law could not be applied under vicars-apostolic, nor could
provincial synods be held, however necessary their action might be,
without a metropolitan and suffragan bishops. The vicars-apostolic
petitioned only with a view to improve the internal organization of the
church. They had no idea of attacking any other body, and surely never
dreamt of rivalry with the established Anglican church. What they did,
besides, was perfectly within the law, and according to the rights of
liberty of conscience. The Holy Father kindly listened to the petition,
and referred it for further consideration to the congregation of
Propaganda. When every point was carefully examined, and objections
satisfactorily replied to, the favor petitioned for was granted.
Difficulties having been started in regard to some matter of detail, the
publication of the new code of church administration was delayed. These
difficulties were removed the following year by Bishop Ullathorne. But the
measure was again retarded by the revolution which broke out at Rome in
1848. The delay was not without its uses. It gave time to the statesmen of
England to become acquainted with and consider the measure of reform which
was proposed for adoption in the internal organization of the Catholic
church in England. It was officially communicated to them when printed, in
1848. They made no objection. And yet, when it was promulgated in 1850,
their chief spoke of it, in his ill-timed letter to the Bishop of Durham,
as “insolent and insidious.” For many an age to come, Catholics will read
with astonishment that so inoffensive an act of the Holy See, done at the
request of the Catholic bishops of England, and in the interest of the
Catholic people, at the time some seven millions in number, should have
excited the anger of so great a portion of the English nation. The isle
was literally frighted from its propriety. From the Queen on her throne to
the humblest villager, all were seized with sudden and unaccountable fear,
as if the monarchy had been threatened with immediate overthrow. The
Queen, in terror, called her Council of State around her. But her chief
adviser, a weak-minded old man, had very little comfort to bestow. He
could only help her Majesty’s bishops to inflame the public mind. In all
conscience, they had done quite enough in this direction without his
assistance. The spirit of bigotry was enkindled, and the clergy, with
their chiefs, gave proof of their bitter hostility through every newspaper
of the land. This acrimonious opposition was, however, chiefly confined to
the ministers of the church by law established. They believed, or
pretended to believe, that the titles and legal rights of their bishops
were aimed at, whilst, in reality, care had been taken to avoid offending
them, or violating the law, by conferring on the new bishops the titles of
the ancient Sees which were held by the established church. It is
impossible to mention anything connected with the establishment of the
hierarchy which can at all explain the violence of the bishops and clergy
generally of the establishment. The popular commotion arose from
misconception and the absurd falsehoods that were industriously
disseminated. The masses were still raging, when Dr. Wiseman, who had just
been raised to the dignity of Cardinal, published an appeal to the people
of England, in which he showed that the measure which had occasioned so
much disturbance concerned only the internal organization of the Catholic
church, that the Pope had not sought such a measure, but had only acceded
to it at the earnest request of the bishops, vicars-apostolic of England:
that there was nothing connected with it contrary to the laws of the
country, or that could not be reconciled with liberty of conscience, which
was now so completely and generally recognized. It was as ridiculous as it
was illiberal to heap torrents of abuse on the Pope, as if he had sought
to usurp the rights of the Crown, or seize on the territory and revenues
of the established Anglican church. As for himself, he was reviled because
he had received the title of Archbishop of Westminster, whilst, in
reality, as regarded the church of that name, and any territory or
property connected with it, it was only an empty title. He was to be
metropolitan. The title of London was inhibited by law. Southwark was to
be itself a diocese. To have taken the title of a subordinate portion of
the great metropolis, such as Finsbury or Islington, would only have
excited ridicule, and caused the new episcopate to be jeered at.
Westminster was naturally selected, although not by himself, as giving an
honorable and well-known title. He was glad that it was chosen, not
because it was the seat of the courts of law, or of parliament, but
because it brought the real point of the controversy more clearly and
strikingly before the opponents of the hierarchy. “Have we, in anything,
acted contrary to law? And if not, why are we to be blamed?” But he
rejoiced, also, for another reason. The chapter of Westminster had been
the first to protest against the new archiepiscopal title, as though some
practical attempt at jurisdiction within the Abbey had been intended. To
this more than absurd charge, the Cardinal eloquently replied: “The
diocese, indeed, of Westminster, embraces a large district, but
Westminster proper consists of two very different parts. One comprises the
stately Abbey, with its adjacent palaces and its royal parks. To this
portion the duties and occupations of the dean and chapter are mainly
confined, and they shall range there undisturbed. To the venerable old
church I may repair, as I have been wont to do. But perhaps the dean and
chapter are not aware, that were I disposed to claim more than the right
to tread the Catholic pavement of that noble building, and breathe its air
of ancient consecration, another might step in with a prior claim. For
successive generations there has existed ever, in the Benedictine order,
an Abbot of Westminster, the representative in religious dignity of those
who erected and beautified and governed that church and cloister. Have
they ever been disturbed by this titular? Have they heard of any claim or
protest on his part touching their temporalities? Then let them fear no
greater aggression now. Like him, I may visit, as I have said, the old
Abbey, and say my prayer by the shrine of good St. Edward, and meditate on
the olden times, when the church filled without a coronation and
multitudes hourly worshipped without a service. But in their temporal
rights, or their quiet possession of any dignity and title, they will not
suffer. Whenever I go in I will pay my entrance fee, like other liege
subjects, and resign myself meekly to the guidance of the beadle, and
listen without rebuke when he points out to my admiration detestable
monuments, or shows me a hole in the wall for a confessional. Yet this
splendid monument, its treasures of art and its fitting endowments, form
not the parts of Westminster which will concern me; for there is another
part which stands in frightful contrast, though in immediate contact with
this magnificence. In ancient times the existence of an abbey in any spot,
with a large staff of clergy and ample revenues, would have sufficed to
create around it a little paradise of comfort, cheerfulness and ease.
This, however, is not now the case. Close under the Abbey of Westminster
there lie concealed labyrinths of lanes and courts, and alleys and slums,
nests of ignorance, vice, depravity and crime, as well as of squalor,
wretchedness and disease; whose atmosphere is typhus, whose ventilation is
cholera; in which swarms a huge and almost countless population, in great
measure, nominally, at least, Catholic; haunts of filth which no sewerage
committee can reach; dark corners which no lighting board can brighten.
This is the part of Westminster which alone I covet, and which I shall be
glad to claim and to visit, as a blessed pasture in which sheep of Holy
Church are to be tended, in which a bishop’s godly work has to be done, of
consoling, converting and preserving. And if, as I humbly trust in God, it
shall be seen that this special culture, arising from the establishment of
our hierarchy, bears fruits of order, peacefulness, decency, religion and
virtue, it may be that the Holy See shall not be thought to have acted
unwisely, when it bound up the very soul and salvation of a Chief Pastor
with those of a city, whereof the name, indeed, is glorious, but the
purlieus infamous—in which the very grandeur of its public edifices is as
a shadow to screen from the public eye sin and misery the most appalling.
If the wealth of the Abbey be stagnant, and not diffusive; if it in no way
rescue the neighboring population from the depths in which it is sunk, let
there be no jealousy of any one who, by whatever name, is ready to make
the latter his care, without interfering with the former.”

In the passage which follows, the established clergy are rather
unceremoniously handled; and not undeservedly, for there can be no doubt
that their reckless diatribes in the pulpit, on the platform, and in the
press, were the chief cause of the unhallowed uproar which attended the
publication of the new and much-needed organization of the Catholic church
in England. It certainly was not their fault if the country was not
disgraced by deeds of violence. In one or two places, indeed, such things
were attempted. At a town in the north of England, where there is a
Catholic mission, a mob of excited people threatened the chapel and
priest’s house. The presence of a counter-mob from a neighboring colliery
speedily restored tranquillity. In another town a crowd of the unwashed
were proceeding to burn the Pope and Cardinal in effigy, when these august
persons were wisely seized by order of the magistrates, and, with some of
their unruly escort, secured within the prison walls. Although a few
_hired_ ruffians could attempt such things (it is known that those last
named were hired), the English people were far from contemplating anything
like violence. So it is with no small pleasure that is here recorded the
high compliment paid to them in the following eloquent passage of Cardinal
Wiseman’s appeal: “I cannot conclude,” he says towards the end, “without
one word on the part which the clergy of the Anglican church have acted in
the late excitement. Catholics have been their principal theological
opponents, and we have carried on our controversies with them temperately,
and with every personal consideration. We have had no recourse to popular
arts to debase them; we have never attempted, even when the current of
public opinion has set against them, to turn it to advantage, by joining
in any outcry. They are not our members who yearly call for returns of
sinecures or episcopal incomes; they are not our people who form
antichurch-and-state associations; it is not our press which sends forth
caricatures of ecclesiastical dignitaries, or throws ridicule on clerical
avocations. With us the cause of truth and of faith has been held too
sacred to be advocated in any but honorable and religious modes. We have
avoided the tumult of public assemblies and farthing appeals to the
ignorance of the multitude. But no sooner has an opportunity been given
for awakening every lurking passion against us than it has been eagerly
seized by the ministers of the Establishment. The pulpit and the platform,
the church and the town hall, have been equally their field of labor; and
speeches have been made and untruths uttered, and calumnies repeated, and
flashing words of disdain and anger and hate and contempt, and of every
unpriestly and unchristian and unholy sentiment, have been spoken, that
could be said against those who almost alone have treated them with
respect. And little care was taken at what time or in what circumstances
these things were done. If the spark had fallen upon the inflammable
materials of a gunpowder-treason mob, and made it explode, or, what was
worse, had ignited it, what cared they? If blood had been inflamed and
arms uplifted, and the torch in their grasp, and flames had been
enkindled, what heeded they? If the persons of those whom consecration
makes holy, even according to their own belief, had been seized, like the
Austrian general, and ill-treated, and perhaps maimed, or worse, what
recked they? These very things were, one and all, pointed at as glorious
signs, should they take place, of high and noble Protestant feeling in the
land, as proofs of the prevalence of an unpersecuting, a free, inquiring,
a tolerant gospel creed!

“Thanks to you, brave and generous and noble-hearted people of England!
who would not be stirred up by those whose duty it is to teach you,
gentlemen, meekness and forbearance, to support what they call a religious
cause, by irreligious means; and would not hunt down, when bidden, your
unoffending fellow-citizens, to the hollow cry of ‘No Popery,’ and on the
pretence of a fabled aggression.”

The London _Times_ might well say, referring to this magnificent appeal,
that the Cardinal had at length spoken English. It was easy to mystify the
people in regard to theological utterances. They could be no longer
deceived now that the Chief of the new hierarchy had addressed them in
round Saxon terms, about the meaning of which there could be no mistake.
The _appeal_ first published in the London _Times_ was reproduced in all
the newspapers of the country. The public mind was tranquillized, and very
little was heard, afterwards, of the “Papal aggression.” The Prime
Minister, however, was bound, for the sake of consistency, to do
something. What he did was highly in favor of the hierarchy. It proved
that everything had been done according to law, simply by the fact that
parliament was urged to make a new law by which everything that had been
done would be illegal. This was the famous Ecclesiastical Titles Bill. It
was designed to accomplish a great deal—to extinguish for ever the
Cardinal Archbishop, and all the other newly-instituted bishops. It proved
utterly futile—_telum imbelle sine ictu_. The people could not be made to
put down the Catholic institution; and religious liberty was so thoroughly
recognized that even an act of parliament was powerless against it.

(M28) The new Sees constituted by the Letters Apostolical of 29th
September, 1850, were thirteen in number—Westminster, the Metropolitan
See; Southwark, Hexham, Beverly, Liverpool, Salford, Shrewsbury, Newport,
Clifton, Plymouth, Nottingham, Birmingham and Northampton.

(M29) At the time of the restoration of the English hierarchy, Dr. Wiseman
was created a Cardinal, not so much in honor of the important act to which
it was his charge to give effect, as because the Holy Father having
resolved on a creation of Cardinals so eminent a man could not be
overlooked. At the accession of Pius IX. there were sixty-one living
Cardinals. Of these only nine were not Italians. When, on his return to
Rome, after his sojourn in the kingdom of Naples, he determined to add
fourteen Cardinals to the Sacred College, only four of the prelates
selected were natives of Italy. The rest were, at the time, the most
distinguished men of the Catholic world. Of this number Archbishop Geissel
of Cologne was one, and the King of Prussia, more liberal than certain
magnates of England, thanked the Holy Father, in an autograph letter, for
the honor thus done to the Catholic church of his country. Since that time
the Prussian monarch appears to have changed his sentiments as well as his
ministry.

(M30) Notwithstanding the noisy demonstrations in opposition to the
Cardinal Archbishop and his brother bishops, they were allowed to pursue
in peace their labors of Christian zeal. The English grumbled, as is their
wont. But discovering in time that they were neither attacked nor hurt,
the rights of liberty of conscience were respected, and no persecution
followed what it was at first the fashion to call the “Papal aggression.”

(M31) The Emancipation Bill of 1829, by which liberty of conscience, which
was so proudly called the birthright of every Englishman, was extended to
Catholics, tended powerfully, no doubt, to promote the development of the
Catholic church. It grew also by emigration from Catholic Ireland, and
there were some conversions occasionally from the Protestant ranks. It was
not, however, till the decade immediately preceding the restoration of the
hierarchy, that there was a very marked and decided movement of the
educated and learned men of England towards the Catholic church. It is not
recorded anywhere that Catholic missionaries or envoys of the Pope had
penetrated into those sanctuaries of Protestant learning—the celebrated
universities of Oxford and Cambridge. There, at least, there was no “Papal
aggression,” and tract upon tract was issued from the press of those seats
of learning, in which it was argued that the doctrines taught by the
Fathers of the first five centuries were the real Christian teaching which
all men were bound to accept. It appeared to have escaped the learned men
of Cambridge and Oxford that these were the very doctrines so
perseveringly adhered to by the long-ignored and down-trodden Catholics of
England.

This fact, however, flashed upon their minds at last, and they who were
lights in the Anglican establishment, which had been so long surrounded by
a halo of worldly glory, and to be connected with which was a sure title
to respectability, hesitated not to place themselves in communion with
those whose position as a church had been for so many generations like to
that of the early Christians who lurked in the catacombs of Rome. The
clergy of the Catholic church in England, although they did not and could
not have inaugurated the Cambridge and Oxford movement, recognized its
importance, and freely seconded what it was beyond their power to
initiate. Foremost amongst those who were ever ready to afford comfort and
encouragement to the able and inquiring men who sought the one true fold,
was the learned ecclesiastic of world-wide renown who, a little later,
bore so conspicuous a part in the re-establishment of the sacred hierarchy
in England. This highly-gifted divine was a willing worker in the great
Master’s field. His labors were beyond even his great powers; and so his
career, though brilliant, was comparatively short. The cause which he so
well sustained is one which cannot suffer an irreparable loss; and great
would be the joy of the pious and devoted Cardinal, so early snatched
away, if it were given him to behold the rapid developments of the church
which, in his day, he so ably and successfully upheld.

(M32) If the increase of Catholics in England was rapid during the decade
which preceded, it was much more so immediately alter the restoration of
the hierarchy. This event appears to have given a new impetus to the
growth of the church and her salutary institutions. Religious communities
multiplied under the fostering care of the Cardinal Archbishop, and the
encouragement which the Holy Father never ceased to afford. From 80, at
the accession of Pius IX., they rose to 367; and schools and colleges
increased from 500 to 1,300. The number of priests in Great Britain was
more than trebled. It grew from 820 to 1,968, whilst churches and chapels
rose in proportion—from 626 to 1,268. The number of dignitaries and other
ministers of the Church of England, by law established, who, within the
same period, embraced the Catholic faith, is estimated at over one
thousand. There were, at the same time, numerous conversions among the
laity. All this, together with the natural growth of population and
immigration from Ireland, accounts for the increase of Catholics
throughout the British isles in the days of Pius IX., as well as for the
great additions to the number of their clergy, churches, religious and
educational institutions. Monsignore Capel ascribes these extraordinary
developments in great measure to the action of that section of the Church
of England which is known as the High Church or Ritualist division of the
Establishment. This is true, no doubt, as regards any augmentation of the
church through conversions from Protestantism, and the impetus given by
the movement towards Catholic union. “It is scarcely possible,” says the
Rev. Monsignore Capel, “to find a family in England that will not own that
one of its members, or, at least, some acquaintance, has relations with
the Catholic church, or observes some of the practices of that church,
whether it be adoration of the Blessed Sacrament, auricular confession,
devotion to the Blessed Virgin, or veneration of the saints. This movement
is of such powerful proportions, and possesses such vitality of action,
that no power on earth, no persecution on the part of Protestantism, the
government or the press, is able to suppress it. Catholics would never
have been able, themselves alone, to realize what is now accomplished by a
section of the established Anglican church. The members of this party, by
their discourses in the pulpit, have familiarized the public mind with
expressions which Catholics never could have spread among the English
people to the same extent, such as altar and sacrifice, priest and
priesthood, high mass, sacrament, penance, confession, &c. The movement
has produced this result. Many persons have become seriously religious,
who had been in the habit of considering that the service of God was only
a fitting employment for Sunday. In fine, the spirit of God which breathed
on the waters at the commencement is now passing over the British nation
and impelling it towards Catholic truth.”

Not a few of those who were once distinguished ministers of the Anglican
church are now officiating, with great acceptance, as Catholic priests. Of
the 264 priests of the diocese of Westminster, there are 40 who were
members of the official or law church. There passed not a week, M. Capel
assures us, that he did not receive four or five Ritualists into the
communion of the Catholic church. This was no fruit of his labor and
ability, he modestly as well as truly declares. They were persons with
whom he had no relations whatsoever, until they came to him, their minds
made up, and expressed that serious determination which is so
characteristic of them.

The publications of the celebrated statesman, Mr. Gladstone, although they
have not won for him reputation as a theologian, have, nevertheless,
promoted the cause of Catholic theology. The opinions of so eminent a man
were naturally subjects of general discussion; and thus, whilst he opposed
Pius IX. and his decisions, he caused many, who would never probably have
thought seriously of anything a Pope could say, to give their attention to
matters spiritual of the highest import. As regards his own theology, it
is partly sound, partly the reverse. Whilst entirely misapprehending the
doctrine of infallibility, and denying what he conceives it to be, he
vigorously maintains the indefectibility of the Catholic church, and
acknowledges the claim of her pastors to “descent in an unbroken line from
Christ and His apostles.” Such is one of the powerful agents in the great
movement of the age. The most influential of all, however, was Pope Pius
IX. himself. English people and Americans often sought his presence. And
who shall tell how many, after having conversed with him or his
representatives, have been disabused of their erroneous notions, or have
even embraced the Catholic faith?

One chief cause of the remarkable development of the Catholic church in
the British isles, is the complete religious liberty which Catholics
enjoy. This important fact was thoroughly recognized on occasion of the
celebration of the anniversary of O’Connell in August, 1875, when a solemn
_Te Deum_ was ordered in all the churches by the Cardinal Archbishop, in
thanksgiving for the liberty of conscience which was so gloriously won for
the United Kingdom as well as Ireland and all the colonies. Pius IX. and
the whole Catholic world joined on the same occasion in acts of
thanksgiving with the spiritual heirs of Sts. Patrick, Augustine, Columba
and St. Thomas of Canterbury. It is a noteworthy fact that the number of
archiepiscopal and episcopal sees, together with vicariates-apostolic,
&c., created by Pius IX. throughout the British Empire, is not less than
one hundred and twenty-five.

(M33) For three hundred years the Catholics of Holland were sorely tried
by persecution. Until the time of the Concordat of 1827, they were
governed by archpriests, whose superior or prefect resided at the Hague.
When Holland was separated from Belgium, the king of the former country
wisely resolved to act as a constitutional monarch. He was considerate as
regarded his Catholic subjects. His successor, William II., to whom in
1840 he resigned the crown, treated them with still greater benevolence.
He sought an understanding with the Holy See, and gave effect to the
Concordat of 1827. Vicars-apostolic, invested with the episcopal
character, were now the chief pastors of the church of Holland. The king
also sanctioned the establishment of several religious communities, among
the rest the Society of Jesuits and the Liguorians. These arrangements
were joyfully accepted by the Catholics of Holland, and paved the way for
greater developments. These worthy people were, for a long time, believed
to be few in number, and scarcely more than nominally Catholics. Relieved,
at length, from the pressure of persecution, they astonished the world,
not only by their numbers, but also, and even more, by their zeal in the
cause of religion. According to the census of 1840, they were nearly
one-half of the entire population of Holland. Total population, 2,860,450;
Protestants, 1,700,275; Catholics, 1,100,616. The remainder was made up of
Jews and other dissenters. Thus were the Catholics of Holland as eleven to
seventeen. Since that time they have not ceased to increase. Nor have they
lost the high character which induced Pius IX., in 1853, to restore, the
king concurring, their long-lost hierarchy. An archbishopric, Utrecht, and
four episcopal sees were established—Harlem, Herzogenbosch, or Bois le
Due, Breda and Roermonde. This wise and necessary measure was followed by
an outburst of wrath on the side of the anti-Catholic party. But in
Holland, as in England, it soon subsided, and left only the impression
that Protestants and other non-Catholic people claim an exclusive right to
religious liberty. Pius IX. never ceased to entertain a high opinion of
the good Catholics of Holland. “Ah!” said he to visitors from that
country, “could we ever forget that these single-minded, loyal, patient
Hollanders formed the majority of our soldiers, who were not native
Italians, at Castelfidardo and Mentana.”

(M34) Whilst in the old world, wherever really free political institutions
existed, the spirit of persecution quailed before the recognized principle
of religious liberty, in certain portions of the new it appeared to gain
strength, and to increase in the violence of its opposition to the liberty
of the church. This was particularly the case in New Granada, where
politicians, without statesmanship or experience, imagined that they had
made their people free, when they succeeded in separating them from Spain
and establishing a republic, in which the first principles of liberty were
ignored. It is not recorded that the clergy of New Granada sought to do
violence to any man’s conscience, or ever thought of forcing any one to
accept the Catholic creed. To say the least, they were too wise to
attempt, thus to fill the church with hypocrites and secret enemies. Of
such there were already too many in those societies which shun the light,
and in the new world as actively as in the old intrigue and manœuvre in
order to overthrow every regular and legitimately established government.
Even the republic of New Granada, which had been fashioned so much
according to their will, was far from perfect in their estimation, so long
as the church was not completely subject to the state. So early as 1847,
Pius IX. addressed a fatherly remonstrance to the President of the New
Republic. It was of no avail. The evil continued. Anti-Catholic
legislation was coolly proceeded with. In 1850 the seminary of Bogota was
confiscated. The following year bishops were forbidden the visitation of
convents. Laws were enacted requiring that lay parishioners should elect
their parish priests, and that canons should be appointed by the
provincial councils. The clergy were robbed of their proper incomes, and
the congress or parliament of the republic arrogated the right to
determine what salaries they should enjoy as well as what duties they
should fulfil. This surely was nothing less than to reduce the church to
be nothing more than a department of the civil government. The church
could not so exist. Its principle and organization were from a higher
source. The Socialists and secret plotters fully understood that they were
so, and that in this lay the secret of the church’s power to promote
virtue and check the course of evil. It consisted, it appears, with their
ideas of justice and liberty, that the church should, if possible, be
deprived of this great and salutary moral power. So, whilst neither its
members, generally, nor its clergy desired radical and subversive changes
in the essential constitution of the church, the republican leaders
determined that it should be completely revolutionized. The bishops and
priests protested, with one voice, against such fundamental innovations.
The republicans, no less resolute, and, bent on their wicked purpose,
imprisoned and banished the clergy. One dignitary alone showed weakness.
He was no other than the Vicar-Caputular of Antioquia. Pius IX. charitably
rebuked him, and exhorted him to suffer courageously, like his brethren.
The persecution, meanwhile, was very sweeping. The Archbishop of Bogota,
Senor Mosquera, and almost all the suffragan bishops, were driven from the
country, so that there was scarcely a bishop left in the republic. It was
now speedily seen that the godless radicals had overdone their ungracious
work. The country was roused. The tide of popular indignation set in
against the short-sighted politicians who persecuted the church, and they,
dreading an insurrection, withdrew, with the best grace they could
command, from the false position which they had so unwisely assumed.

(M35) Whilst the spirit of persecution brooded gloomily over many
countries of the new world, its influence began to decline in those lands
where for centuries the idea of liberty of conscience was unknown, where
even the slightest toleration existed not. Those northern lights, those
champions in their day of Protestantism and “_religious liberty_” Gustavus
Wasa and Gustavus Adolphus, were not mistaken when they bequeathed to
their country laws which were intended to be as unchangeable as those of
the Medes and Persians, and which forbade all Scandinavians, whether
Swedes, Danes or Norwegians, under pain of death, to embrace the Catholic
faith. Those princes were wise in their generation. They understood the
power of Truth; they knew that half measures were of no avail against it;
and that in order to stifle it, even for a time, all the terrors of
worldly tyranny must be brought into play. Their laws, more terrible than
the code of Draco, remained in force and without mitigation until a great
revolution had swept over Europe, and sent a military adventurer to fill
the regal seat of the formidable Wasas. In the time of Bernadotte (the
Doct Baron), the infamous penal laws were relaxed. To become a Catholic
now only led to imprisonment or exile. Six ladies of Sweden, in defiance
of this _milder_ law, came to profess the Catholic faith. They were tried,
condemned and sentenced to be banished from the country. The execution of
this barbarous sentence roused all Europe, and caused the abrogation of
the Swedish penal laws against religion. (M36) Thus was a new field laid
open to missionary zeal, and Pius IX., availing himself of so favorable a
change of circumstances, appointed a Catholic pastor missionary apostolic
at Stockholm. This devoted priest labors assiduously and in the midst of
difficulties, but not without fruit. He contends, with all the success
that can be as yet expected, against prejudices hostile to the religion
which brought civilization to the Scandinavian nations, and which have
been accumulating for three centuries and a half.

(M37) Denmark followed in the wake of Sweden. Within the first two years
after the abrogation of the cruel Danish penal code, there were six
hundred conversions to the Catholic faith.

(M38) The Catholic church in the recently-erected kingdom of Greece was
governed by vicars-apostolic. It grieved King Otho, who, as is well known,
was of the Catholic royal family of Bavaria, to see his country treated as
if it were a heathen land. It was not, however, till the time of his
successor, who is a son of the King of Denmark, that Pius the Ninth was
able to establish a hierarchy in Greece. There is now an archbishop of
Athens as well as an archbishop of Corfu.

(M39) At a time when crime abounded, the governments of certain petty
States of Germany, instead of directing their energies towards its
repression, and so fulfilling one of the chief duties incumbent on the
State, employed all the authority with which they were invested to
disorganize the church and destroy its salutary influence. As is usual,
when States, forgetting the great objects for which they are entrusted
with the sword of justice, follow such a course, they attacked the
ministers of the church, banishing, imprisoning, thwarting and molesting
them in every possible way. In the Grand Duchy of Baden the civil
authorities arrogated the right to appoint parish priests and other
members of the sacred ministry. They went so far as to endeavor to poison
religious instruction at its source, and declared that the students in
Catholic seminaries must undergo, before ordination, an examination by
civil officials. This tyrannical law was courageously opposed by the
venerable archbishop, Vicary, of Friburg. (M40) Although eighty years of
age, he was dragged before the courts, and placed like a criminal under
charge of the police. The faithful clergy were banished, imprisoned and
fined. The Holy Father, with his usual zeal, remonstrated. It was to no
purpose. At length the Catholics of Germany were roused. They could no
longer be indifferent. The day was come when the church, in her utmost
need, could not dispense with their assistance. All must now be for her or
against her. The great majority flocked around her standard. Meanwhile,
the public offices in the churches were suspended. The bells and organs
were heard no more. Silence and death-like gloom overspread the land.
Baden gave way. Wurtemberg, Hesse Cassel and Nassau, which had done their
best to follow in the wake of Baden, paused in their mad career. Thus,
throughout those lesser States peace reigned once more, and continued to
reign in Germany until a greater State, Prussia, unwisely disturbed the
religious harmony which so happily prevailed. The chiefs of States,
alarmed by the revolutionary spirit which spread, like contagion,
throughout Germany as well as the rest of Europe, adopted a more rational
policy. They encouraged the clergy to hold missions everywhere. They
invited the Liguorians and Jesuits, as well as the secular clergy, to
assemble the people in the towns and throughout the country, knowing full
well that they would preach peace and concord no less than respect for
property and life. These pastoral labors were attended with extraordinary
success. Faith, piety, and every virtue flourished among the Catholic
people. All honest Protestants were filled with admiration. Among the
latter there was also a remarkable movement. Some striking conversions
took place, especially in the higher and better educated classes of
society. The Countess de Hahn, so renowned in the literary world for her
wit, abilities, and fine writings, joined the Catholic church, and
published her reasons for so doing. Not satisfied with this step, she came
to the town of Angers, in France, and placed herself as a novice under the
direction of the devout sisters of the Good Shepherd. It is on record
also, that a Protestant journalist of Mecklenburgh, in view of the
commotions which prevailed, and the anti-social doctrines which pervaded
society, went so far as to declare that there was no other remedy for
Protestant Germany than a return to the Catholic church. His remarks
conclude with the following words, extraordinary words, indeed, when it is
considered whence they proceed: “Forward, then, to Rome!”

(M41) In countries nearer the Holy City, and professing to be Catholic,
the venerable Pontiff found not such a source of consolation. Sardinia had
banished the archbishop of Turin. It not only refused to recall him, but
added to its list of exiles the archbishop of Cagliari. Many more bishops
were, at the same time, threatened with banishment. A professor in the
Royal University of Turin, encouraged by the government, attacked the
doctrine of the church, and was so bold as to deny, in public, that
matrimony is a sacrament. Pius IX. issued a condemnation of his
anti-Catholic writings. The sentence did not move him. Nor did it stay the
hand of the Sardinian government which was raised against the church and
her institutions. It continued the preparation of its anti-marriage law.
In addition, accusations were laid against the clergy. The king himself,
evading the real question at issue, accused them of disloyalty, and
declared that they were warring against the monarchy. The Holy Father, in
the following letter to the king, distinctly set forth the real state of
the case:


    “If by words provoking insubordination are meant the writings of
    the clergy against the proposed marriage law, we declare, without
    endorsing the language which some may have adopted, that in
    opposing it the clergy simply did their duty. We write to your
    Majesty that the law is not Catholic. Now, if the law is not
    Catholic, the clergy are bound to warn the faithful, even though
    by doing so they incur the greatest dangers. It is in the name of
    Jesus Christ, whose Vicar, though unworthy, we are, that we speak,
    and we tell your Majesty, in His sacred name, not to sanction this
    law, which will be the source of a thousand disorders. We also beg
    your Majesty to put a check to the press which is constantly
    vomiting forth blasphemy and immorality. Your Majesty complains of
    the clergy. But these last years the clergy have been persistently
    outraged, mocked, calumniated, reviled and derided by almost all
    the papers published in Piedmont.”


That country, unfortunately, appears to have been entirely at the mercy of
the party of unbelief. It was ever ready to inflict new wrongs on the
church, and occasion anxiety and sorrow to the Holy Father.

(M42) There are few readers of ecclesiastical history who are not deeply
interested in that portion of India which was the first field of the
extraordinary apostolic labors of Saint Francis Xavier. The blessing of
the Saint appears to have rested on the land of Goa; for after many years
of trial and difficulty and schism, this Portuguese settlement, once so
great and important, still remains a province of the church. The
Portuguese government, by unjustly claiming right of patronage, originated
the schism which, unfortunately, was of such long continuance. It was
reserved for Pius IX. to restore harmony to the Colonial church of Goa.
Happily, in 1851, the schism was brought to an end.

(M43) Pius IX. was still an exile at Gaeta when, observing the increasing
piety of the Catholic world towards the Blessed Virgin, and moved by the
representations of many bishops that were in harmony with his own
conviction, he issued the Encyclical of the 2nd February, 1849, addressed
to the Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops and Bishops of the whole world,
in order to obtain from them the universal tradition concerning the
Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Mother of God. In this Encyclical the
Holy Father recognizes the fact that there was a universal movement among
Christians in favor of the belief in question, so that the complete
acknowledgment of it appeared to be sufficiently prepared both by the
liturgy and the formal requisitions of numerous bishops, no less than by
the studies of the most learned theologians. He further states that this
general disposition was in full accordance with his own thought, and that
it would afford him great consolation, at a time when so many evils
assailed the church, to add a flower to the crown of the most holy Virgin,
and so acquire a title to her special protection. He declares, moreover,
that with this end in view he had appointed a commission of Cardinals in
order to study the question. He concludes by inviting all his venerable
brethren of the Episcopate to make known to him their sentiments and join
their prayers with his in order to obtain light from on high.

As the cross itself was folly in the estimation of the early unbelieving
world, so were such theological occupations, at a time when the Sovereign
Pontiff had not an inch of ground whereon he could freely tread, a subject
for jesting and sarcasm to the worldly-wise of the nineteenth century. It
was some time before they came to understand that a Pope is a theologian
more than a king, that, as such, he is sure of the future, and that the
solemn proceeding in regard to the Immaculate Conception was a triumphant
reply to all the errors of modern thought. This dogma brings to naught all
the rationalist systems which refuse to acknowledge in human nature either
fall or supernatural redemption. The means, besides, which were adopted in
order to prepare its promulgation, tended to bring the various churches
throughout the world into closer relation with their common Head and
Centre. They who had hitherto laughed, now raged when they saw this great
result, and attacked with the utmost fury what they called the “new
dogma.” Both sectarianism and the schools of sophistry descanted loudly,
although certainly not learnedly, on the ignorance and ineptitude of the
institution which so powerfully opposed them. All this was only idle
clamoring. It never hindered the Holy Pontiff from prosecuting calmly the
important work which heaven had inspired him to begin.

The Encyclical was warmly responded to by the Episcopate. Six hundred and
three replies were duly forwarded to the Holy Father. Five hundred and
forty-six urgently insisted on a doctrinal definition. A few only, and
among these was Mgr. Sibour, Archbishop of Paris, doubted whether the time
were opportune. But there was no doubt as to the sentiments of the
Catholic world. Only in our time, when the facilities of communication are
so much greater than in any former age, could the plan of consulting so
many bishops in all parts of the world have been successfully adopted.
Pius IX. was now at Rome, and invited around him all bishops who could
travel to the Holy City. No fewer than one hundred and ninety-two from
every country except Russia sought the presence of the Chief Pastor. The
absence of the Russian bishops was all the more surprising, as the
Russo-Greek church vies with Rome in the honor which it pays to the
Blessed Mary. The bishops, however, were not to blame. Their good purposes
were frustrated by the jealous policy of the Emperor Nicholas. The bishops
assembled at Rome, in obedience to the wishes of Pius IX., did not
constitute a formal council. They were, nevertheless, a very complete
representation of the universal church. There were of their number some
highly distinguished cardinals, archbishops and bishops, such as Cardinals
Wiseman and Patrizzi, Archbishops Fransoni of Turin, Reisach of Munich,
Sibour of Paris, Bedini of Thebes, Hughes of New York, Kenrick of
Baltimore, and Dixon of Armagh, together with Bishops Mazenod of
Marseilles, Bouvier of Mans, Malon of Bruges, Dupanloup of Orleans, and
Ketteler of Mayence. Who will say that the learning of the Catholic world
was not at hand to aid with sound counsel the commission of cardinals and
theologians whom the Holy Father had appointed to prepare the Bull of
definition? There had never been so many eminent bishops together at Rome,
since the Œcumenial Council of 1215. On so great an occasion Pius IX. had
requested the prayers of the faithful, and throughout the Catholic world
supplication was made to heaven, in order to obtain, through the light of
the Holy Ghost, such a decision as could tend only to promote the glory of
God, the honor due to the Blessed Virgin Mary and the salvation of
mankind. The bishops at one of their sessions gave a very practical
utterance as regards the infallible authority of the Pope. The question
having arisen whether the bishops were to assist him as judges in coming
to a decision, and pronounce simultaneously with him, or leave the final
judgment solely to the word of the Sovereign Pontiff, the debate, as if by
inspiration from on high, came suddenly to a close. It was the Angelus
hour. The prelates had scarcely resumed their places after the short
prayer, and exchanged a few words, when they made a unanimous declaration
in favor of the supremacy of St. Peter’s chair: _Petre, doce nos; confirma
fratres tuos_—“Peter, teach us; confirm thy brethren.” The teaching which
the Reverend Fathers sought from the lips of the Supreme Pastor was the
definition of the Immaculate Conception.

(M44) The 8th December, 1854, was the great triumphal day which, according
to the fine language of Bishop Dupanloup, “crowned the expectation of past
ages, blessed the present time, claimed the gratitude of the centuries to
come, and left an imperishable memory—the day on which was pronounced the
first definition of an article of Faith which no dissentient voice
preceded, and which no heresy followed.” All Rome rejoiced. An immense
multitude of people of all tongues crowded the approaches to the vast
Basilica of St. Peter, which was by far too small to contain the imposing
host. Then were seen advancing the bishops, in solemn procession, placed
according to seniority, and followed by the cardinals. The Sovereign
Pontiff, surrounded by a brilliant cortege, closed the procession.
Meanwhile was heard the grave chant of the Litanies of the Saints,
inviting the heavenly court to join with the Church militant in doing
honor to her who was Queen alike of angels and of men. Pius IX. ascended
his throne; and as soon as he had received the obedience of the cardinals
and bishops, the Pontifical Mass began. When the Gospel had been chanted
in Greek and in Latin, Cardinal Macchi, Dean of the Sacred College,
accompanied by the deans of the archbishops and bishops, by an archbishop
of the Greek rite, also, and an Armenian archbishop, advanced to the foot
of the throne, and begged of the Holy Father, in the name of the whole
church, “to raise his apostolic voice and pronounce the dogmatic decree of
the _Immaculate Conception_.” The Pope, bowing his head, gladly welcomed
the petition; but wished once more to invoke the aid of the Holy Ghost.
Then rising from his throne, he intoned in a clear and firm voice, which
rang through the grand Basilica, the _veni creator spiritus_. All who were
present, cardinals, bishops, priests and people, mingled their voices with
that of the Father of the Faithful, and the sonorous tones of the heavenly
hymn resounded through the spacious edifice. Silence came. All eyes were
rivetted on the venerable Pontiff. His countenance appeared to be
transfigured by the solemnity of the act in which he was engaged. And now,
in that firm and grave, but mild and majestic, tone of voice, the charm of
which was known to so many millions, he began to read the Bull, which
announced the sublime dogma of the Immaculate Conception. It established,
in the first place, the theological reasons for the belief in the
privilege of Mary. It then appealed to the ancient and universal
traditions of both the Eastern and the Western churches, the testimony of
the religious orders, and of the schools of theology, that of the Holy
Fathers and the Councils, as well as the witness borne by Pontifical acts,
both ancient and more recent. The countenance of the Holy Father showed
that he was deeply moved, as he unfolded these magnificent documents. He
was obliged, several times, so great was his emotion, to stop.
“Consequently,” he continued, “after having offered without ceasing, in
humility and with fasting, our own prayers and the public prayers of the
church to God the Father through His Son, that He would deign to guide and
confirm our mind by the power of the Holy Ghost, after we had implored the
aid of the whole host of heaven, to the glory of the Holy and Undivided
Trinity, for the honor of the Virgin Mother of God, for the exaltation of
the Catholic faith and the increase of the Christian religion; by the
authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the blessed apostles Peter and
Paul, and by our own”—at these words the Holy Father’s voice appeared to
fail him, and he paused to wipe away his tears. The audience was, at the
same time, deeply moved; but, dumb from respect and admiration, they
waited in deepest silence. The venerable Pontiff resumed in a strong
voice, which shortly rose to a tone of enthusiasm: “We declare, pronounce
and define, that the doctrine which affirms that the Blessed Virgin Mary
was preserved and exempt from all stain of original sin from the first
moment of her conception, in consideration of the merits of Jesus Christ,
the Saviour of mankind, is a doctrine revealed by God, and which, for this
cause, the faithful must firmly and constantly believe. Wherefore, if any
one should be so presumptuous, which, God forbid! as to admit a belief
contrary to our definition, let him know that he has suffered shipwreck of
his faith, and that he is separated from the unity of the church.” As the
Pontiff concluded, a glad responsive “Amen” resounded through the crowded
temple.

The Cardinal-dean once more reverently approached, and petitioned that
order be given for the publication of the apostolic letters containing the
definition; the promoter of the Faith, accompanied by the Apostolic
Protonotaries, also came to ask that a formal record of the great act
should be drawn up. At the same time the cannon of the castle of Saint
Angelo, and all the bells of Rome, proclaimed to the world that the
ever-blessed Mary was gloriously declared immaculate. Throughout the
evening the holy city echoed and re-echoed to the sounds of joyous music,
was ablaze with fire-works, and decorated with innumerable inscriptions
and emblematic transparencies.

The example of Rome was immediately followed by thousands of towns and
villages over the whole surface of the globe. It would require libraries
rather than volumes to reproduce the expressions of pious concurrence
which everywhere took place. The replies of the bishops to the Pope before
the definition, were printed in nine volumes; the Bull itself, translated
into all the tongues and dialects of the universe, by the labors of a
learned French sulpician, the Abbe Sire, appeared in ten volumes; the
pastoral instructions, publishing and explaining the Bull, together with
the articles of religious journals, would certainly make several hundred
volumes, especially if to these were added the many books by the most
learned men, and the singularly beautiful hymns and poems which flowed
from the pens of Catholic poets, no less than the eloquent discourses of
the most gifted orators. Descriptions of monuments and celebrations would
also immensely swell the list. Sanctuaries, altars, statues, monuments of
every kind, as well as pious associations rose everywhere in honor of the
Immaculate Conception. The ever-increasing devotion to Mary had become
greater than ever. It was to the unbelieving a phenomenon in the moral
world of the nineteenth century, which they could neither comprehend nor
account for. They could only see that it was as a source of new life to
the church.

(M45) The education law of France, enacted in 1850, had given rise to
differences of opinion among earnest Catholics. These only increased after
the celebrated _coup d’etat_ of 2nd December. M. de Montalembert, who had
become hostile to Prince Louis Napoleon, on occasion of the iniquitous
confiscation of the Orleans property, M. de Falloux, and their friends of
the _Correspondant_, and the _Ami de la Religion_, insisted that they
ought not to accept the protection of Cæsar in place of the general
guarantees which were so profitable to the liberty of the church. They
were right, as was but too well shown in the sequel. M. Louis Veuillot and
the writers of the _Univers_ opposed their views, and so they accused
these gentlemen of servility. But this was too much, as the event also
showed.

The congregation of the “Index” had condemned several French works, some
absolutely, and others only until they should be corrected. Among these
last were books generally used, notwithstanding their faults, in the
public schools, such as the _Manual of Canon Law_, by M. Lequeux,
vicar-general of the Archbishop of Paris, and the theology, so long in
use, of Bailly. The authors of these works at once submitted. One of the
sentences, however, that which affected the Dictionary of M. Bouillet,
greatly offended the Archbishop of Paris—Mgr. Sibour, who had signified
his approval of this publication. He blamed the _Univers_ and the lay
religious press in general. He formulated his complaints in a charge of
15th January, 1851, and by a still more vigorous one in 1853, which was
written at the instigation of a Canon of Orleans, M. L’Abbe Gaduel, who
had accused Donoso Cortes, in the _Ami de la Religion_, of several
heresies, and who complained of having been refuted in the _Univers_ with
a warmth that was far from respectful. Mgr. Sibour forbade the priests of
his diocese to read the _Univers_, and threatened with excommunication the
editors of this journal, if they presumed to discuss the sentence which he
had pronounced against them. A similar sentence came to be uttered by Mgr.
Dupanloup, Bishop of Orleans, against the same writers, condemning the
opinions which they held concerning the study of the classics. M.
Veuillot, following in the wake of M. L’Abbe Gaume, maintained that one of
the principal causes of the weakening of faith since the time of the
_renaissance_, was the obligation imposed on youth of studying, almost
exclusively, Pagan authors. Mgr. Dupanloup contended rather against
exaggerations of this opinion than against the idea itself. But having
developed his views in an episcopal letter to the professors of his lesser
seminaries, he would not allow them to be opposed; and so, like Mgr.
Sibour, interdicted the _Univers_ to his clergy. M. Louis Veuillot
appealed to the supreme bishop.

The French episcopate was _greatly_ divided on the subject of these
untoward controversies. The Bishops of Chartres, Moulins and others, had
publicly defended the _Univers_ in opposition to the Archbishop of Paris.
Cardinal Gousset, Archbishop of Rheims, patronized the opinions of M.
Veuillot in regard to the use of heathen classics. An anonymous paper on
_the right of custom_, addressed to the episcopate, now added to all these
subjects of controversy the recriminations of Gallicanism, which was
almost extinct. The author denying that the customs of the church of
France were abrogated by the Concordat, maintained that the disciplinary
sentences of the Popes could not be applied in any diocese until they were
first promulgated therein. He disputed the authority of the decrees of the
“Index,” blamed the liturgical movement, reproached the religious
journalists with seeking, above all, to please the Court of Rome, and
concluded by advising the bishops to come to an understanding among
themselves, in order to obtain from the Pope a modification of his
decisions. Pius IX. could be silent no longer. Accordingly, he addressed
to all the French bishops an Encyclical, which is known in history as the
Encyclical _inter multiplices_. He commenced by acknowledging the subjects
of joy and consolation afforded him by the progress of religion in France,
and especially by the zeal and devotedness of the bishops of that country.
He gave special praise to these prelates, because they availed themselves
of the liberty which had been restored to them in order to hold Provincial
Councils, and expressed his satisfaction, “that in a great many dioceses,
where no particular circumstance opposed an impediment, the Roman Liturgy
was re-established.” He could not, however, dissemble the sorrow which was
caused him by existing dissensions, and for which he blamed, although
indirectly, political opposition and party spirit. “If ever,” said the
Holy Father, “it behooved you to maintain among yourselves agreement of
mind and will, it is, above all, now, when, through the disposition of our
very dear son in Christ, Napoleon, Emperor of the French, the Catholic
church amongst you enjoys complete peace, liberty and protection.” In
speaking of the good education of youth, which he earnestly recommended as
being of the highest importance, he gave a practical solution of the vexed
question of the classics. “It is necessary,” he insisted, “that young
ecclesiastics should, without being exposed to any danger of error, learn
true elegance of language and style, together with real eloquence, whether
in the very pious and learned works of the Holy Fathers, or in the most
celebrated Pagan authors, when thoroughly expurgated.” In this same
Encyclical also, the venerable Pontiff, speaking of the Catholic press,
declared it to be indispensible. “Encourage, we most anxiously ask of you,
with the utmost benevolence, those men who, filled with a truly Catholic
spirit, and thoroughly acquainted with literature and science, devote
their time in writing books and journals for the propagation and defence
of Truth.”

Catholic writers, in return, it is added, ought to acknowledge the
authority of bishops to guide, admonish and rebuke them. The anonymous
paper is then severely censured, and the Pope concludes by a new and
pressing appeal in favor of concord. As soon as this Encyclical of 21st
March, 1853, was published, M. Louis Veuillot and his fellow-laborers
addressed to Mgr. Sibour a letter expressive of respect and deference, in
which they promised to avoid everything that could render them unworthy of
the encouragement of their archbishop. This prelate immediately withdrew
the sentence which he had issued against them, and thus was peace
restored, once more, by the authority of the Supreme Pastor.

(M46) On the 12th of April, 1855, the fifth anniversary of his return from
Gaeta, Pius IX. drove by the via Nomentana, the beautiful Church of St.
Agnes and the Porta Pia, to a spot five miles from the city, where, on
grounds belonging to the congregation of Propaganda, catacombs had been
recently discovered. In these subterranean recesses were found, among
other venerated tombs, that which contained the relics of St. Alexander
I., Pope and Martyr, and those of the companions who shared his
sufferings. The professors and students of Propaganda had assembled at the
place in honor of the Pope’s visit. They descended with him to the Crypt,
where the Holy Father, as soon as he entered, knelt in prayer beside the
remains of his sainted predecessor, who, more than seventeen centuries
ago, had sealed his faith with his blood. After examining the long
corridors of the catacomb, the Holy Father took his seat on the ancient
throne of the chapel, which, no doubt, in the dark days of heathen
persecution, several of his predecessors had filled. So placed, he
delivered to the pupils of Propaganda a feeling allocution on the high
career which lay before them as preachers of the true Faith. He then
addressed a few words to the eminent persons who surrounded him, and
proceeded back to the Church of St. Agnes. Having adored the Blessed
Sacrament, and venerated the relics of the Virgin Martyr, he entered the
neighboring convent of canons regular of St. John Lateran, where a
suitable repast awaited the august visitor. This was followed by a
conversazione in the parlor, in which the distinguished parties who had
accompanied the Pope took part. Almost every Catholic country was
represented there; and, among the rest, were Archbishop Cullen of Dublin
(long since a Cardinal), and Bishop de Goesbriand of Burlington. The Pope
was on the point of departing, when the Superiors of Propaganda prayed him
to grant an audience to the students. Pius IX. graciously complied, and
resumed his seat in the chair of state which was appropriately canopied. A
hundred young ecclesiastics now rapidly entered the room. All of a sudden
the floor gave way with a loud crash, and the whole assembly disappeared
in a confused mass of furniture, stones, plaster, and a blinding cloud of
dust. The joists had given way, and the whole flooring fell to a depth of
nearly twenty feet. The voice of the Pope was first heard, intimating that
he was safe and uninjured. As a few inmates of the convent had remained
outside, assistance speedily came, and the Holy Father was promptly
extricated from the ruins. Solicitous only for the safety of the company,
he urgently ordered that they should all be withdrawn as rapidly as
possible from their perilous position; and he waited in the garden till
every one of them was rescued. Not so much as one was dangerously injured.

“It is a miracle,” said the Pope, who was greatly rejoiced. “Let us go and
thank God.” Followed by the whole company, as well as those who had come
to rescue them, he entered the church, where, deeply affected, he intoned
the _Te Deum_, and concluded with the solemn benediction of the most Holy
Sacrament.

The news of the accident spread rapidly through the city. The people
flocked to the churches. At St. Agnes the wonderful deliverance was
commemorated by a special service. The interior of this church has been
since restored at great cost by Pius IX. A fresco in the open space in
front represents the scene at the convent. The 12th of April is now a
holiday at Rome, and it is observed every year with piety and gratitude.
Twenty years later—12th of April, 1875—the Romans held a magnificent
celebration of the anniversary of the accident at St. Agnes. It was also
the day of the Pope’s return from Gaeta, in 1850. In reply to the address,
expressive of duty and devotedness, which was presented to him on that
occasion, the Holy Father alluded, in the language of an apostle, to the
mysterious ways of Providence. “Our fall at St. Agnes,” said he, “appeared
at first to be a catastrophe. It struck us all with fear. Its only result,
however, was to cause the works by which the ancient Basilica was renewed
and embellished to be more vigorously prosecuted. The same will be the
case in regard to the moral ruins which the powers of darkness are
constantly heaping up against us and around us. The church will emerge
from the confused mass more vigorous and more beautiful than ever.”

(M47) Piedmont, surely, had little to do at the Congress of Paris, the
object of which was to make the best arrangements possible for the
Christians, and especially the Catholics, of the East. Count Cavour, its
representative, nevertheless, found a pretext for being present, and
introduced as he was by the Minister of France, Count Walewski, and
sustained by the British Plenipotentiary, Lord Clarendon, he became more
important than the power of his country, or the share it had in the
Crimean War, would alone have warranted. He availed himself of his
position to attack and undermine two of the minor sovereigns—the Pope and
the King of Naples.

“The States of the Holy See,” he insisted, “never knew prosperity, except
under the rule of Napoleon I., when they formed part of the French empire
and the kingdom of Italy. Later, the Emperor Napoleon III., _with that
precision and firmness of view by which he is characterized_, understood
and clearly pointed out in his letter to Colonel Ney the solution of the
problem: _Secularization and the Code Napoleon_; but it is evident that
the Court of Rome will struggle to the last moment, and by every possible
means, against the realization of this twofold combination. It is easily
understood that it may appear to accept civil and even political reforms,
taking care always to render them illusory. But it knows too well that
secularization and the code Napoleon, once introduced into the edifice of
the temporal power, would undermine it and cause it to fall, simply by
removing its principal supports—clerical privileges and canon law.
Clerical organization opposes insurmountable impediments to all kinds of
innovations.”

Cavour urged, in conclusion, that “the legations” must be separated
politically, and a viceroy set over those provinces. Walewski and
Clarendon supported these views, but cautiously using the enigmatic
language of diplomacy. The Plenipotentiaries of the other Powers were
silent, or refused to give an opinion, on the ground that they had no
instructions. M. de Mauteuffel alone, the Prussian representative, sternly
observed that such recriminations as M. de Cavour had brought forward were
very like an appeal to the revolutionary movements in Italy. Prussia did
not, at that time, foresee what advantage it was destined to reap from the
alliance of the Italian revolution with Napoleon III. France, however, had
reason to dread lest the chief of her choice should return to the dark
practices of his youth. Her too well-founded apprehensions were confirmed
and aggravated when it came to the public ear, through the newspapers of
the time, that the Emperor had held a too intimate interview with M. de
Cavour at the waters of Plombieres. All this, notwithstanding an alliance
of France with Piedmont, for the destruction of the Pope’s temporal
sovereignty, appeared as yet to be so completely out of the question, that
the French ambassador at Rome refuted publicly the calumnies which M. de
Cavour had so selfishly promulgated. Count de Rayneval had been a long
time at Rome, first as Secretary of the Embassy of King Louis Philippe,
and afterwards as Plenipotentiary of the Republic, before he was appointed
to represent the Emperor Napoleon. None could be better qualified to give
a luminous report of the state of matters at Rome. The revolutionary
press, however, never noticed it, and the government refused to publish it
in the _Moniteur_, preferring the wretched pamphlet of M. About on the
_Roman Question_. The French, who wished to be well informed, sought the
words of M. de Rayneval’s report in the columns of the London _Daily
News_:

COUNT RAYNEVAL’s REPORT TO THE FRENCH GOVERNMENT.

“Pius IX. shows himself full of ardor for reforms. He himself puts his
hand to the work. From the very day Pius IX. mounted the throne he has
made continuous efforts to sweep away every legitimate cause of complaint
against the public administration of affairs.

“Already have civil and criminal cases, as well as a code relating to
commerce, all founded on our own, enriched by lessons derived from
experience, been promulgated. I have studied these carefully—they are
above criticism. The Code des Hypotheques has been examined by French
_juris consults_, and has been cited by them as a model document. Abroad
(says this distinguished and able writer), those essential changes that
are introduced into the order of things, those incessant efforts of the
Pontifical government to ameliorate the lot of the populations, have
passed unnoticed. People have had ears only for the declamation of the
discontented, and for the permanent calumnies of the bad portion of the
Piedmontese and Italian press. This is the source from which public
opinion has derived its inspiration. And in spite of well established
facts, it is believed in most places, but particularly in England, that
the Pontifical government has done nothing for its subjects, and has
restricted itself to the perpetuation of the errors of another age. I have
only yet indicated the ameliorations introduced into the organization of
the administration. Above all, let us remember that never has a more
exalted spirit of clemency been seen to preside over a restoration. No
vengeance has been exercised on those who caused the overthrow of the
Pontifical government—no measures of rigor have been adopted against
them—the Pope has contented himself with depriving them of the power of
doing harm by banishing them from the land.”

ECONOMY OF THE PAPAL GOVERNMENT—MODERATE TAXATION.

“In spite of considerable burdens which were occasioned by the revolution,
and left as a legacy to the present government—in spite of extraordinary
expenses caused by the reorganization of the army—in spite of numerous
contributions towards the encouragement of public works, the state budget,
which, at the commencement, exhibited a tolerably large _deficit_, has
been gradually tending towards equilibrium. I have had the honor recently
of pointing out to your Excellency, that the deficit of 1857 has been
reduced to an insignificant sum, consisting for the most part of
unexpected expenses, and of money reserved for the extinction of the debt.
The taxes remain still much below the mean rate of the different European
States. A Roman pays the state 22 francs annually, 68,000,000 being levied
on a population of 3,000,000. A Frenchman pays the French government 45
francs, 1,600,000,000 being levied on a population of 35,000,000. These
figures show, demonstratively, that the Pontifical States, with regard to
so important a point, must be reckoned amongst the most favored nations.
The expenses are regulated on principles of the greatest economy. One fact
is sufficient. The civil list, the expenses of the cardinals, of the
diplomatic corps abroad, the maintenance of Pontifical palaces and the
museum, cost the state no more than 600,000 crowns (3,200,000). This small
sum is the only share of the public revenue taken by the Papacy for the
support of the Pontifical dignity, and for keeping up the principal
establishments of the superior ecclesiastical administration. We might ask
those persons, so zealous in hunting down abuses, whether the
appropriation of 4,000 crowns to the wants of the princes of the church
seems to them to bear the impress of a proper economy exercised with
respect to the public revenue?

AGRICULTURE—DRAINING THE CAMPAGNA—PRISON DISCIPLINE—ADMINISTRATION OF
CHARITABLE INSTITUTIONS—ABUSES—JUDICIAL SYSTEM, ETC.

“Agriculture has been equally the object of encouragement, and also
gardening and the raising of stock. Lastly, a commission, composed of the
principal landed proprietors, is now studying the hitherto insoluble
question of draining the Campagna of Rome, and filling it with
inhabitants. There is, in truth, misery here as elsewhere, but it is
infinitely less heavy than in less favored climates. Mere necessaries are
obtained cheaply. Private charities are numerous and effective. Here also
the action of the government is perceptible. Important ameliorations have
been introduced into the administration of hospitals and prisons. Some of
these prisons should be visited, that the visitor may admire—the term is
not too strong—the persevering charity of the Holy Father. I will not
extend this enumeration. What I have said ought to be sufficient to prove
that all the measures adopted by the Pontifical administration bear marks
of wisdom, reason and progress; that they have already produced happy
results; in short, that there is not a single detail of interest to the
well-being, either moral or material, of the population, which has escaped
the attention of the government, or which has not been treated in a
favorable manner. In truth, when certain persons say to the Pontifical
government, ‘form an administration which may have for its aim the good of
the people,’ the government might reply, ‘look at our acts, and condemn us
if you dare.’ The government might ask, ‘not only which of its acts is a
subject of legitimate blame, but in which of its duties it has failed?’
Are we, then, to be told that the Pontifical government is a model—that it
has no weakness or imperfections? Certainly not; but its weakness and
imperfections are of the same kind as are met with in all governments, and
even in all men, with very few exceptions. I am perpetually interrogating
those who come to me to denounce what they call the abuses of the Papal
government. The expression, it must be remembered, is now consecrated, and
is above criticism or objection. It is held as Gospel. Now, in what do the
abuses consist? I have never yet been able to discover. At least, the
facts which go by that name are such as are elsewhere traceable to the
imperfection of human nature, and we need not load the government with the
direct responsibility of the irregularities committed by some of its
subordinate agents. The imperfections of the judiciary system are often
cited. I have examined it closely, and have found it impossible to
discover any serious cause of complaint. Those who lose their causes
complain more loudly and more continuously than is the custom in other
places, but without any more reason. Most of the important civil cases are
decided in the tribunal of the Rota. Now, in spite of the habitual license
of Italian criticism, no one has dared to express a doubt of the profound
knowledge and the exalted integrity of the tribunal of the Rota. If the
lawyers are incredibly fertile in raising objections and exceptions—if
they lengthen out lawsuits—to what is this fault to be attributed if not
to the peculiarity of the national genius? Lastly, civil law is well
administered. I do not know a single sentence the justice of which would
not be recognized by the best tribunal in Europe. Criminal justice is
administered in a manner equally unassailable. I have watched some trials
throughout their whole details; I was obliged to confess that necessary
precautions for the verification of facts—all possible guarantees for the
free defence of the accused, including the publication of the
proceedings—were taken.”

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.’

“Here is a second letter, which I received a few days ago from an English
merchant of the highest standing at Leghorn: ‘No intervention is allowed
in Tuscany; and nevertheless, my Lord, intervention appears everywhere;
even armed and foreign intervention. The governor-general is a
Piedmontese; the minister of war is a Piedmontese; the commander of the
armed police is a Piedmontese; the military governor of Leghorn is a
Piedmontese; the captain of the port is a Piedmontese; without reckoning a
great number of other functionaries of the same nation. This is what I
call armed and foreign intervention. Let us be disembarrassed of all this;
let us be free from the despotic pressure of this government, and the
great majority of the country would vote the restoration of the House of
Lorraine. Almost all the army would be for the Grand Duke, and on this
account it is kept at a distance from Tuscany. I can say the same of
two-thirds of the national guard. All the Great Powers have observed
strict neutrality here, inasmuch as they have not been present at any
ceremony which could be looked upon as a recognition of the existing
government. But since the peace of Villafranca, the English agents have
taken part in all the ceremonies, in all the balls.’ Assuredly, thus to
recognize such a government is far from being faithful to the assurance
given last session by the noble Lord at the head of the foreign department
(cheers).”

Lord Normanby’s trustworthy correspondent says, moreover, in the letter
referred to, that the Tuscan troops being kept at a distance from Tuscany,
the people dreaded making any demonstration, being well aware that an
imprudent word would be punished with imprisonment. “At Leghorn, however,
some private meetings were held, at which influential persons were
present. Public meetings are impossible. Twenty-three members of the
assembly asked that it should be convened. This was refused them. At the
private meetings, however, it was decided that Ferdinand IV. should be
recalled, on condition of granting a constitution and an amnesty. The
people have been dreadfully deceived. All promises have been violated, the
price of provisions has risen, the national debt has been enormously
increased.”

Lord Normanby also laid before the House of Peers the testimony of a
distinguished Italian writer, Signor Amperi, whom he described as a man of
high character. This gentleman addressed the governments of Central Italy
in the following terms:

“The false position in which you have placed yourselves has reduced you to
the necessity, in times of liberty, as you pretend, but of false liberty,
as I conceive, to make falsehood a system of government. Of the promises
of Victor Emmanuel that he would sustain before the Great Powers the vote
of the Tuscan Assembly, you have made a formal accepting for himself of
this vote, and, in order to deceive the ignorant multitude, you ordered
public rejoicings in honor of a fact which you knew to be false. You
declared yourselves the ministers of a king who had not appointed you. You
administer the government in his name; you give judgments in his name; you
pledge the public faith of a sovereign who has given you no commission to
do any such thing; and although you forced the Tuscans to acknowledge him
for king, you despise his authority to such an extent as to impose upon
him the choice of a regent. What right have you to do this, if he be
really king, and if he be not, is your right any better founded?”

The Marquis of Normanby laughs to scorn the various attempts that were
made to establish a government in Central Italy against the will of the
people. First of all, a certain Signor Buoncompagni was appointed
governor-general by the King of Sardinia. The Emperor of the French judged
that the ambitious satrap had exceeded his powers, and Buoncompagni was
immediately recalled. The Prince de Carignan was then offered the regency
of Central Italy. He thought it prudent to decline; but, unwilling wholly
to relinquish a cherished object of ambition, he named in his place the
above-mentioned Signor Buoncompagni. It would be hard to say in virtue of
what right he so acted. The appointment, it is well known, caused the
greatest indignation at Florence, and elicited a protest from the liberal
representatives themselves. Will it be believed, in after times, that the
British ministry, at that time in power, actually recognized this spurious
government, ordering the Queen’s representative to pay an official visit
to Signor Buoncompagni? Whilst all Europe held aloof, anxious to avoid
wrong and insult to the Italian people, whence this zeal and haste on the
part of the British cabinet? At first they had resolved to be neutral. But
there occurred to them the chimerical idea of a great kingdom of Central
Italy; and, as Lord Normanby stated, they hastened in their ignorance to
carry this idea into effect. “Yes,” continued the illustrious Peer, when
assailed by the laughter of the more ignorant portion of his hearers,
“yes, in complete ignorance of the aspirations and the prejudices of the
Italian people.”

“It is a painful duty,” said the illustrious statesman, in concluding his
eloquent appeal to the common sense and honorable feeling of the British
peerage, “to have to dispel the illusions of public opinion in regard to
Italy. I have endeavored to fulfil this duty by laying before you
information that can be relied on; and I have the pleasure to observe that
light is now beginning to penetrate the darkness which has hitherto
enveloped this question. There is already a greater chance that Italian
independence will be established on a more legitimate basis, free from all
foreign intervention, and in such a way as to favor the cause of fidelity,
of truth, of honor and general order (cheers).”

If there were no foreign intervention, it was long the fashion with
certain parties to say, we should soon see the end of Papal rule, as well
as that of all the other sovereignties of Italy. Such, however, were not
the views of the great majority of the Italian people. It has been
satisfactorily proved, those people themselves being the witnesses, that
such of them as were subjects of the Pope, far from being discontented and
anxious to do away with the government which was set over them, and
substitute for it either a republic or a foreign monarchy, highly
appreciated and were steadfastly devoted to the wise and paternal rule of
their Pontiff Sovereign. The subjects of the other Italian Princes, as
well as the inhabitants of the revolutionized portion of the Papal States,
were only prevented by the armed intervention of foreign Powers from
declaring in favor of their rightful sovereigns. There is no pretension to
deny that there were reformers and constitutionalists in those States. Of
their number the Pope himself was one. But the well-informed and
intellectual Italians were not ignorant that all reforms must be the fruit
of time and of opinion, and that under the sway of enlightened and
benevolent sovereigns, aided by the learning and wise counsel of able and
conscientious statesmen, such changes, in matters of civil polity, as were
adapted to the wants of the people would not have been delayed beyond the
time when circumstances called for and justified their adoption.

(M67) All eyes were turned towards the victor of Solferino, who was the
absolute master of the situation. What would he do? Would he allow to be
violated the definitive treaty which his Plenipotentiaries were actually
completing at Zurich? Napoleon III. did positively nothing. He repeated in
the treaty the stipulations in favor of the dispossessed sovereigns, just
as if the pretended plebiscitums were null, and he had no knowledge of
them. He quietly permitted these plebiscitums to take effect with all
their consequences, quite the same as if the treaty had never existed.
Austria saw the treaty executed, as regarded every sacrifice to which she
had consented, and not without pain, that it was set aside in all the
points which set a limit to those sacrifices. But Austria was not the
strongest Power. Piedmont, meanwhile, adhibited her signature without
wincing under those of France and Austria. Thus, as Mgr. Pie of Poitiers
declared, the church was deprived of all human stay. Such a state of
things was not witnessed without emotion. Even in the frivolous society of
France a change had taken place since the days of the great revolution.
Catholic sentiment had gained among the lettered classes. The dethronement
of Pius VI. had passed unnoticed, like that of an ordinary sovereign. That
of Pius VII. had excited only some isolated animadversions. That of Pius
IX. raised storms of protestation on the one hand, and on the other
thunders of applause. One party so hated the Papacy as to become traitors
to their country, and bind themselves with a sort of wild enthusiasm,
first to the car of Italian unity, afterwards to that of Germany. They who
thought otherwise carried their love of the imperilled institution to such
an extent as to forget all their calculations, all their political
alliances, and to incur freely the displeasure of men in power, even to
sacrifice the favor of the multitude, favor which was not less valuable in
times of universal suffrage than that of power. The Roman question became
the inexhaustible subject of public discussions and private conversations.
It sometimes even occasioned family quarrels, and was a trying ordeal for
long-established friendships. Such extraordinary emotion on account of an
idea—an abstraction, as it was called by the indifferent, who took part
with neither one side nor the other—showed that society was not yet
corroded to the core by selfishness and purely material interests. It was
sick, indeed, but far from dead. The French government ought, surely, at
the outset, to have taken warning. It ought to have learned something from
the unanimity with which all the enemies of order, who were also its
enemies, supported its new policy, and the unanimity, not less remarkable,
with which religious people who, generally, had been its friends, combated
that policy. Both liberal and ultramontane Catholics, Protestants even,
such, at least, as were earnest Christians, and practised what they
believed, forgot their divisions. The bishops were the first who spoke
out. Mgr. de Parisis, who had so nobly contended for the liberties of the
church in the reign of Louis Philippe, gave the keynote, and all took part
with him and their venerable colleagues of Italy and Germany, of Ireland
and Spain, of England and America. To say all in a word, the note of alarm
was sounded throughout the whole extent of Christendom.

In this magnificent concert was heard the courageous language of Mgr.
Dupanloup, the learned and illustrious Bishop of Orleans. On the 30th of
September, 1859, this prelate wrote, no less boldly than eloquently:

“People say that to touch the sovereign is not to touch the Pontiff.
Certainly his temporal power is not a divine institution; who does not
know this? But it is a providential institution, and who is ignorant of
the fact? Doubtless, during three centuries, the Popes only possessed
independence enough to die martyrs; but they assuredly had a right to
another sort of independence; and providence, which does not always use
miracles for its purpose, ended by founding on the most lawful sovereignty
in Europe the freedom and the independence necessary to the church.
History proves it beyond the possibility of doubt; all eminent intellects
have confessed it; all true statesmen know it. Yes, that the church may be
free, the Pope must be free and independent. That independence must be
sovereign. The Pope must be free, and he must be evidently so. The Pope
must be free in his own interior as well as in his exterior government.
This must be so, for the sake of his own dignity in the government of the
church as well as for the security of our own consciences. This must be
so, in order to secure to the common parent of all the faithful that
neutrality which is indispensable to him amid the frequent wars between
Christian Powers. The Pope must not only be free in his own conscience, in
his own interior, but it must be evident to all that he is so; he must
show himself to be so, in order that all may know and believe it, and that
no doubt or suspicion be possible on this subject. But, say the Italian
revolutionists, we do not propose to do away with the Papal sovereignty;
we merely wish to limit and restrain it. And why so, I ask you in my turn,
if thereby you also diminish and debase the honor of the Catholic
religion, its dignity and independence? Why do so, if thereby you lower
and degrade the most Italian sovereignty of the whole peninsula? Why, more
especially, do so now, in presence of all these unchained evil passions,
and thereby give against the Holy See a sentence of incapacity, and thus,
in the eyes of Christendom, insult that unarmed and oppressed Majesty? You
say he will only lose the Romagna and the Legations. But allow me to ask
you by what right you take them? And why not take all the rest, if you
please? Why, in your dreams of Italian unity, should other Italian cities
fare otherwise than Bologna and Ferrara? Why have you not made up your
minds to take everything outside of Rome, with the garden of the Vatican?
You have said this, you know. But why leave him, even in Rome? Why should
not Dioclesian and the catacombs be the best of all governments for the
church? Where are you going? How far will your detestable principles lead
you? At least, tell us clearly? Is this a clever calculation of yours?
and, not daring to do more at present, or unable to do more, are you
waiting for time and the violence of events to accomplish the rest? But
who, think you, is to be deceived by you? Must we say, with the highest
organ of the English press, that in the present business France is
aggressive and insidious? I do not admit that our country is willing to
play the part designed for her. Such calculations are not suited to French
generosity. For my part, I protest, with my whole soul, against the
perfidious intentions that we are supposed to entertain. But, in
concluding, I must protest, still more solemnly, as a devoted son of the
Holy Roman Church, the mother and teacher of all others—I protest against
the revolutionary impiety which ignores her rights and would fain steal
her patrimony. I protest, in the name of good sense and honor, indignant
at beholding an Italian Sovereign Power become the accomplice of
insurrection and revolt, and at the conspiracy of so many blind and
unreasoning passions against the principles proclaimed and professed
throughout the world by all great statesmen and politicians. I protest, in
the name of common decency and European law, against this profanation of
all that is most august, against the brutal passions which have inspired
acts of inconceivable cowardice. And if I must speak out, I protest, in
the name of good faith, against this restless and ill-disguised ambition,
those evasive answers, that disloyal policy, of which we have the
saddening spectacle before our eyes.”

These burning words of the eminent and patriotic French bishop must have
pierced the soul of Napoleon III. To any other man, at least, an Orsini
shell would have been less terrible. But, “_Perversi difficillime
corriguntur_.” No reproaches, however severe and well deserved, no
remonstrance, however well founded, could move the French Emperor. A
greater power than that of words had impelled him towards the evil courses
which the great majority of the French nation, together with the whole
Catholic world, condemned. The bishops, meanwhile, continued to protest.
The Archbishop of Sens, Mellon-Jolly, dared to say, in accents of sorrow:
“Events, alas! are far beyond all that we feared.” De Prilly, Bishop of
Chalons, Dean of the French Episcopate, thus wrote a few days before his
death: “Ah! who deserved less than Pius IX. to be attacked by so many
enemies! If the tears which he sheds are so bitter for himself, they are
terrible to those who cause them! A poor bishop, at the point of death, so
assures him and craves his benediction.” The expiring prelate, one would
say, had foreseen the humiliation of Sedan. The courageous language of the
bishops was so much feared that it was thought necessary to silence them.
Napoleon, having endeavored in vain to remove their disquietude by
renewing his hollow protestations, denounced them as violent agitators,
abandoned them to the jeers of the infidel press, for which alone there
was liberty in those days, and finally forbade all journals whatsoever to
publish episcopal writings that bore any relation to the Roman question.
Thus did he think to escape the danger with which he was threatened by
silencing the tongues which warned him.

The learned Cardinal Donnet, so celebrated as a theologian, now showed the
abilities of a diplomatist. When Napoleon III. was at Bordeaux, on the
11th October, 1859, the cardinal, whose duty it was to compliment the
Emperor as his sovereign, failed not at the same time to remonstrate
against his tortuous policy. “We pray,” said the pious cardinal, “we pray
confidently, persistently, and with hope which neither deplorable events
nor sacrilegious acts of violence extinguished. Our hopes, the realization
of which appears to be so remote, are founded on yourself, sire, next to
God. You were and you still desire to be the oldest son of the church, and
it cannot be forgotten that you spoke the memorable words: ‘The temporal
sovereignty of the venerable head of the church is intimately connected
with the lustre of Catholicism, as also with the liberty and independence
of Italy.’ Grand idea! perfectly in harmony with that of the august Chief
of your dynasty, who said in regard to the temporal power of the Popes:
‘_The centuries made it, and they did well._’ ” The only reply of the
all-powerful Emperor was a refusal to reply. “I cannot here,” he said,
“discuss all the weighty matters, the development of which would be
required by the serious question to which you have alluded. So I confine
myself to reminding you that the government which restored the Holy Father
to his throne can only give him counsel inspired by sincere and respectful
devotedness to his interests. But he is anxious, and not without cause, as
to the time, which cannot be far distant, when our troops must evacuate
Rome. For Europe cannot allow the occupation, which has already lasted ten
years, to be prolonged for an indefinite period. But when our army shall
be withdrawn, what will be left behind? These are questions of the
importance of which none are ignorant. But, believe me, in order to solve
them, we must, considering the age in which we live, avoid appealing to
ardent passions, calmly seek truth, and pray Divine Providence to
enlighten both peoples and kings, in order that they may wisely use their
rights and fully discharge their duties.” From these last words the
Emperor appeared to have forgot that when there are duties to be fulfilled
prayer alone will not suffice. His speech at the opening of the
legislative session, 7th March, 1860, showed that either irresistible
illusion or a foregone conclusion of complicity guided his Italian policy.
He accused the Catholics of becoming excited without grounds, and of
ingratitude towards him. The logic of events, so plain to all besides, was
a dead letter to the imperial mind, blinded as it was by the habit of dark
manœuvres.

“I cannot pass unnoticed,” said he, “the excitement of a portion of the
Catholic world. It has accepted, without reflection, erroneous
impressions, allowed itself to become passionately alarmed. The past which
ought to have been a guarantee for the future has been so ignored, and
services rendered so forgotten, that profound conviction, absolute
confidence in the public good sense, was necessary for me, in order to
preserve, amid the agitation which was industriously occasioned, that
serenity of mind which alone maintains us in the way of truth.”

(M68) Meanwhile, a Congress for settling the difficulties of Italy was
announced. This Congress was to be composed of all the great European
Powers—of France, whose government had no good will; of Austria, which had
not the power to cause the treaty of Zurich to be put in execution; of
schismatical Russia; of Protestant Prussia, and of Protestant England,
which favored revolution so long as it kept at a distance from its own
doors. Pius IX. beheld in it many causes of disquietude. Nevertheless, he
accepted the congress. The public were discussing, and not without
impatience, the names of the presumed negotiators, when there appeared on
the 22d of December, 1859, a new pamphlet which, like the former, was
anonymous, and was ascribed as it also had been, to an author who was in
too high a position to append his signature. Its title was, “_The Pope and
the Congress_.” It abounded in high sounding words, and was full of
contradictions from beginning to end. It demonstrated, indeed, that the
temporal power of the Pope was an essential guarantee of his spiritual
independence, but that this power could only be exercised within
territorial limits of very small extent, which could not enable him to
sustain himself, whilst, nevertheless, his dignity and the general
interest forbade him to seek foreign intervention. The pamphlet concluded
by insisting that the Pope ought to begin by giving up all claim to
Romagna, and so prepare for ceding, a little later, the rest of his
states, when he would be satisfied to hold the Vatican with a garden
around it, and receive a magnificent salary provided by all the Catholic
Powers. Hundreds of pamphlets and articles in the Catholic journals
appeared in reply to this anonymous writing. They proved that the proposed
arrangement would subject the Head of the Church to the caprice of the
Powers, and then enquired what security he would have against those who
were his securities, especially at a time like the present, when the
ancient law of nations, which was founded on respect for the weak and
sworn faith, is suppressed by the revolution, and the reason of the
strongest is the only one attended to; when the most solemn treaties are
violated with impunity by those who have signed them, and as soon as they
have signed them. The bishops raised their voice anew. They stated with
sorrow that the pamphlet decided in favor of the revolution. But the
boldest condemnation proceeded from Rome itself. The Popes, it is well
known, hesitate not to use the proper terms when there is question of
stigmatizing iniquity. No matter though they be at the mercy of those whom
they brand, they define each error and each act of injustice with the same
precision as in writing a theological thesis. Pius IX., who was mildness
itself, more than once startles the delicate ear by the liberty of his
language, so different from the minced and often ambiguous style of
diplomacy. On the 30th of December, the official journal of Rome published
the following note: “There appeared lately at Paris an anonymous pamphlet,
entitled, ‘_The Pope and the Congress_.’ This pamphlet is nothing else
than homage paid to the revolution—an insidious thesis addressed to those
weak minds who have no sure _criterium_ by which they can detect the
poison which it holds concealed, and a subject of sorrow to all good
Catholics. The arguments contained in this writing are only a reproduction
of the errors and outrages so often hurled against the Holy See, and so
often victoriously refuted. If it was the object of the author, perchance,
to intimidate him whom he threatens with such great disasters, he can rest
assured that he who has right on his side, who seeks no other support than
the solid and immovable foundations of justice, and who is sustained
especially by the protection of the King of kings, has certainly nothing
to fear from the snares of men.”

On 1st January, 1860, Pius IX., in his reply to the complimentary address
of General Goyon, who commanded the French military at Rome, characterized
the pamphlet as “a signal monument of hypocrisy, and an unworthy tissue of
contradictions.” The Holy Father further observed, before expressing his
good wishes for the Emperor, the Empress, the Prince Imperial, and all
France, that the principles enunciated in the pamphlet were condemned by
several papers which his Imperial Majesty had some time before been so
good as to send to him. A few days later the _Moniteur_ published a letter
of the Emperor to the Pope, dated 31st December, 1859, in which the former
renews his hypocritical expressions of devotedness, but admits, at the
same time, that “notwithstanding the presence of his troops at Rome, and
his dutiful affection to the Holy See, he could not avoid a certain
partnership in the effects of the national movement provoked in Italy by
the war against Austria.” In this same letter Napoleon III. reminds the
Pontiff, that at the conclusion of the war he had recommended, as the best
means of maintaining tranquillity, the secularization of his government,
and he still believes that, “if, at that time, his Holiness had consented
to an administrative separation of the Romagna, and the nomination of a
lay governor, the provinces would have come, once more, under his
authority.” What, then, could the people have meant when they petitioned,
on occasion of the Pope’s progress, to have a cardinal for governor, as
formerly, and not lay prefects, as was then the case, under the regime
inaugurated by Pius IX.? The Pope having neglected his advice, Napoleon,
of course, was powerless to stay the tide of revolution. “My efforts were
only successful in preventing the insurrection from spreading, and the
resignation of Garibaldi preserved the marches of Ancona from certain
invasion.” No doubt it did. But, as will soon be seen, this modern
crusader was let loose in order that he might follow his calling more
vigorously, _i.e._, rob and slay on a more extensive scale. The Emperor
now approaches the subjects of the Congress. In his letter he recognizes
the indisputable right of the Holy See to the legations. But he does not
think it probable that the Powers would think it proper to have recourse
to force, in order to restore them. If the restoration were effected by
means of foreign troops, it would be necessary, for a long time, to hold
military occupation of these provinces; and this would only feed the
enmities and hatred of the Italian people. This state of uncertainty
cannot always last. What then is to be done? The Imperial revolutionist
concludes, expressing the most sincere regret, and the pain which such a
solution gives him, that the way most in harmony with the interests of the
Holy See is that it should sacrifice the revolted provinces. For the last
fifty years they have only caused embarrassment to the government of the
Holy Father. If he asked of the Powers to guarantee to him, in exchange
for them, the possession of what remained, order, he had no doubt, would
be immediately restored. This letter left no room to doubt that the policy
of the pamphlet, “_The Pope and the Congress_,” was that of Napoleon III.
As soon as this was known the Congress became impossible. The Pope could
not agree to deliberations based upon the principle of his dispossession.
Austria could not be a party to combinations which removed the bases of
the treaty of Zurich. This opinion was expressed by Count de Rechberg,
first Minister of Austria, in a note of 17th February, 1860, and by Lord
John Russell, in a despatch to Lord Cowley, the British Ambassador at
Paris. “The pamphlets are important,” said the latter statesman; “the
result of the one entitled, ‘_The Pope and the Congress_,’ is to prevent a
Congress, and to cause the Pope to be deprived of one-half of his
dominions.”

It was not without significance that M. Thouvenel was French Minister of
Foreign Affairs from the 4th of January. Piedmont understood this fact. It
caused its troops to cross the Romagnese frontier, whilst M. de Cavour,
triumphant, affirmed, in the Piedmontese Senate, that the letter of
Napoleon III., declaring that the temporal sovereignty was not sacred, was
a fact as important in the Italian question as the battle of Solferino.

The Pope’s reply to Napoleon’s letter of 31st December is of some length.
Elegant in expression, forcible in reasoning, it can only be briefly
reviewed. “I am under the necessity of declaring to your majesty that I
cannot cede the legations without violating the oaths by which I am bound,
without causing misfortune and disturbance in the other provinces, without
doing wrong and giving scandal to all Catholics, without weakening the
rights of the sovereigns of Italy, unjustly despoiled of their dominions,
but also the sovereigns of the whole Christian world, who could not see
with indifference great principles trampled under foot.” The Emperor had
insisted that the cession of the legations by the Pope was necessary, in
order to put an end to the disturbances, which, according to him, although
he knew that such disturbances proceeded wholly from foreigners, had, for
the last fifty years, caused embarrassment to the Pontifical government.
“Who,” said the Pope, “could count the revolutions that have occurred in
France during the last seventy years? And yet, who would dare maintain
that the great French nation is under the necessity, in order to secure
the peace of Europe, to narrow the limits of the Empire? Your argument
proves too much. So I must discard it. Your majesty is not ignorant by
what parties, with what money, and with what support, were committed the
spoliations of Bologna, Ravenna, and other cities.”

The Imperial letter was communicated to all the newspapers. The reply of
the Pope was carefully withheld from them. It only became known in France,
some time later, through a German translation in the Austrian _Gazette_.
Pius IX. was anxious, meantime, that the public should hear both sides of
the question. He therefore brought to the knowledge of the Catholic world
the principal points of his answer to Napoleon in the Encyclical, _nullis
certe verbis_, of date 19th January, in which he declared that he was
prepared to suffer the last extremities rather than betray the cause of
the church and of justice. He also invited all the bishops to join with
him in praying _that God would arise and vindicate his cause_.

The government having information that there was a copy of this document
in the hands of the distinguished Catholic journalist, M. Louis Veuillot,
the Minister of the Interior, M. Billaut, sent for this courageous writer,
and gave him to understand that if he published the Encyclical it would be
the death-warrant of his journal. But M. Veuillot was not to be
intimidated. Next morning, 29th January, there appeared in his paper,
_l’Univers_, the Latin text of the Pontifical document, together with a
French translation. The same day, without trial or sentence, was signed a
decree suppressing _l’Univers_. Yet was not this paper destined wholly to
perish. Ten years later it reappeared, when the tyranny of Napoleon III.
was crushed for ever at Sedan. Several other Catholic journals shared the
fate of _l’Univers_, such as the _Bretagne_, of Saint Brieue, and the
_Gazette_, of Lyons. The government of the Emperor thus showed by what
spirit its counsels were guided. All the Catholic journals of France were
already under the ban of two warnings, so that they had only a precarious
existence, a third warning, according to the legislation of the time
constituting their death-warrant.

So early as 3rd December, 1859, whilst yet a Congress was believed to be
possible, Pius IX. had written with his own hand to Victor Emmanuel, in
order to remind him of his duties, and induce him to defend at the meeting
of the Powers the rights of the Holy See. The latter had answered, 6th
February, 1860, “that he certainly would not have failed in this duty if
the Congress had met.” For, “devoted son as he was of the church, and the
descendant of a most pious family, it never was his intention to neglect
his duties as a Catholic Prince.” He protested, therefore, that he had
done nothing to provoke the insurrection, and that when the war was ended
he had renounced all interference in the legations. But he added, “it is
an acknowledged fact, and which I have personally verified, that in those
provinces which, lately, were so unmanageable and dissatisfied with the
court of Rome, the ministers of worship are actually respected and
protected, and the temples of God more frequented than ever.” Victor
Emmanuel surely now thought that the Pope would never think of disturbing
this happiness and self-satisfaction. “The interests of religion required
it not.” He even hoped that the Holy Father, not satisfied with refraining
from a renewal of his claim on Romagna, would also hand over to him the
marches and Umbria, in order that they might enjoy the same prosperity.
And so he discoursed anew to Pius IX., about his “frank and loyal
concurrence, his sincere and devoted heart,” and ended by craving the Holy
Father’s apostolic blessing.

The King of Piedmont must have been sadly blinded by revolutionary
teachings not to see—if, indeed, he did not see—that such professions of
loyalty and devotedness were positively derisive. Pius IX. so viewed them,
and gave the intriguing monarch to understand that he did so. The
moderation of his language is but slightly indicative of the sorrow and
indignation which he must have experienced. “The idea which your majesty
has thought fit to lay before me is highly imprudent, unworthy, most
assuredly, of a king who is a Catholic and a member of the house of Savoy.
You may read my reply in an Encyclical which will soon appear. I am deeply
affected, not on my own account, but by the deplorable state of your
majesty’s soul. You are already under the ban of censures, which, alas!
will be aggravated when the sacrilegious act which you and your
accomplices are meditating shall have been consummated. May the Lord
enlighten you and give you grace to understand and to bewail the scandals
which have occurred, and the fearful evils with which unfortunate Italy
has been visited through your co-operation.”

(M69) About this time diplomatists discovered the convenient political
doctrine of non-intervention. It was, like most diplomatic devices, a
fallacy. But it served its purpose. The Catholic Powers, however friendly
to the Holy See, were unable to intervene. The greatest of them all,
Austria, was put _hors de combat_ at Solferino. Prussia had intervened, as
far as its policy required, when it forbade further hostilities after the
great battle which made France the mistress of the destinies of Italy.
England, which, as a Protestant Power, had no great friendship for the
Holy See, found it suitable to preach non-intervention, as an excuse for
not being able or for not daring to aid her ancient and faithful ally, the
Pope, in opposition to her new friend, the Emperor of the French. England,
at least, was consistent, for, while she proclaimed and practised
non-intervention in favor of the French Emperor’s subversive intervention
in Italy, she adhered most devoutly to the doctrine when there was
question, a little later, of aiding France against the crushing power of
Prussia.

(M70) Whilst the European Powers lay dormant under the spell of the new
doctrine of non-intervention, the King of Piedmont vigorously pursued his
career of spoliation. Having accepted a sham plebiscitum, he annexed, by a
formal decree of 18th March, the Grand Duchy of Tuscany, the Duchies of
Parma and Modena, and that portion of the Papal States known as the
Legations, to his ancient kingdom of Sardinia and Piedmont. This was done
with the full consent of his Imperial patron, Napoleon III. For, at this
time, Victor Emmanuel ceded to France, as compensation for Central Italy,
Nice and Savoy. This boded ill for France. Some French writers consider
that this transaction would have been less disgraceful if these provinces
had been exchanged for Lombardy, which had been won from Austria with
French blood and treasure. But, as evil destiny, which was hastening to
its accomplishment, would have it, they were given as payment for the
spoils of the widow and orphan of Parma and the aged man of the Vatican.
Thus for once was non-intervention dearly purchased.

The usurping monarch having now accomplished a long-cherished purpose,
ought, one would suppose, to have obeyed the dictates of prudence, and
held his peace. But no. He must write to the Pope, in order to justify his
nefarious proceeding. Piedmontese bayonets and four millions of
Piedmontese gold had won for him the plebiscitum of which he was so proud.
Nevertheless, he declared, addressing the Holy Father, that, “as a
Catholic Prince, he believed he was not wanting to the unchangeable
principles of the religion which it was his glory to profess with
unalterable devotedness and fidelity.” Notwithstanding, “for the sake of
peace, he offered to acknowledge the Pope as his Suzerain, would always
diminish his charges and contribute towards his independence and
security.” He ended his letter by most humbly soliciting, once more, the
apostolic benediction. There is more plain speaking in the reply of Pius
IX. than could have been to the liking of the _Re galantuomo_. “I could
say that the pretended universal suffrage was imposed, not voluntary. I
could say that the Pontifical troops were hindered by other troops, and
you know well what troops, from restoring the legitimate government in the
provinces.” The Holy Father then bewails the increasing immorality
occasioned by the usurping government and the insults constantly offered
to the ministers of religion. Even if he were not bound by solemn oaths to
preserve intact the patrimony of the church, he would, nevertheless, be
obliged to repel everything that tended in this direction, lest his
conscience should be stained by even an indirect sanctioning of, and
participating in, such disorders, and justifying, by concurrence, unjust
and violent spoliation. The Pope concludes by saying, emphatically, that
he cannot extend a friendly welcome to the projects of his majesty, but
that, on the contrary, he protests against the usurpation, and leaves on
the conscience of his majesty and all who co-operate with him in such
iniquity the fatal consequences which flow therefrom. Finally, he hopes
that the king, in reperusing his own letter, will find grounds for
repentance. The Pope, far from being actuated by feelings of resentment,
prays God to give his majesty the grace he stands so much in need of in
such difficult circumstances. The letter is dated at the Vatican, 2nd
April, 1860.

It is related that Victor Emmanuel bedewed with tears this letter, which
so gently and tenderly rebuked him. It must have reached him at one of
those moments of remorse which, more than once, interrupted his scandalous
career. It hindered him not, however, from fulfilling the promise which he
had given to the revolution, when, at the beginning of the war of 1859,
placing his hand on his sword and looking towards Rome, he said: “_Andremo
al fondo_” (“we shall go on to the end”).

On the 26th of March of the same year, Pius IX. issued a Bull,
excommunicating all who took part in wrenching from him so great a portion
of the patrimony of the church. Some parties received the intimation of
this sentence with such noisy demonstrations of delight as to cause their
sincerity to be doubted. Others, and of the number was King Victor
Emmanuel, were struck with indescribable fear. Napoleon III. insisted that
the organic article of the Concordat, forbidding the publication in France
of Bulls, Briefs, &c., should be enforced. But he could not, any more than
his uncle, forbid the excommunication to take effect. The first Napoleon
was at the height of his greatness when struck with excommunication. He
received the sentence with jeers. Would it make the arms fall from the
hands of his soldiers? How literally this question was answered, let the
snows of Russia tell. There are other ministers of the wrath of heaven
besides the frosts of a Northern winter. Napoleon III. was in the zenith
of his power when he heard the sentence which he vainly tried to stifle.
His great political wisdom, and the wonderful success of all he undertook
had hitherto astonished the world. There was now a manifest change. But it
need not here be said with what unspeakable humiliation his star went
down.

The revolutionary party could not have more effectually shown their dread
of the Papal sentence, than by their endeavors to suppress it. They went
so far as to publish in its place a forged document, as odious as it was
extravagant, appended there to the signature of Pius IX., and exposed it
to the jeers of the ignorant multitude. The bishops did their best in
order to make known the truth; with what difficulty it will be easily
understood, when it is remembered that an Imperial decree forbade the
newspapers to publish a word in their interest.

(M71) Had there been question only of forming a united Italy, and of
introducing such reforms as the time demanded into the States of the
Church, and those of the Italian grand dukes, such a cause would have had
no better friends and supporters than the Pope and the native princes. But
the revolutionary party aimed at more than this, and they hastened to show
their hand as soon as they obtained any power. As has been seen, the Holy
Father himself complained bitterly of the increase of irreligion and
immorality under their ill-omened auspices in Romagna. It was not their
policy to reconstitute, but to subvert. No existing institution, however
excellent, was sacred in their eyes. Thus speak the archbishops and
bishops of the Marches in a remonstrance addressed to the Piedmontese
Governor on 21st November, 1860: “We scarcely believe our own eyes, or the
testimony of our own ears, when we see and hear the excesses, the
abominations, the disorders witnessed in the chief cities of our
respective dioceses, to the shame and horror of the beholders, to the
great detriment of religion, of decency and public morality, since the
ordinances against which we protest deprive us of all power to protect
religion and morality, or to repress the prevailing crimes and
licentiousness. The public sale, at nominal prices, of mutilated
translations of the Bible, of pamphlets of every description, saturated
with poisonous errors or infamous obscenities, is permitted in the cities
which, a few months ago, had never heard the names of these scandalous
productions; the impunity with which the most horrible blasphemies are
uttered in public, and the worse utterance of expressions and sentiments
that breathe a hellish wickedness; the exposition, the public sale and the
diffusion of statuettes, pictures and engravings, which brutally outrage
piety, purity, the commonest decency; the representation in our theatres
of pieces and scenes in which are turned into ridicule the Church—Christ’s
immaculate spouse—the Vicar of Christ, the ministers of religion, and
everything held dear to piety and faith; in fine, the fearful
licentiousness of public manners, the odious devices resorted to for
perverting the innocent and the young, the evident wish and aim to make
immorality, obscenity, uncleanness triumph among all classes; such are,
your Excellency, the rapid and faint outlines of the scandalous state of
things created in the Marches by the legislation and discipline so
precipitately introduced by the Piedmontese government. We appeal to your
Excellency. Could we remain silent and indifferent spectators of this
immense calamity without violating our most sacred duty?” If anything
under the government of subversion has saved Italy from utter ruin, it is
nothing less than the zeal and devotedness of its pastors. In the
remonstrance referred to, they declare that notwithstanding all the
contradictions, the trials, the obstacles they have had to encounter, “not
one spark of charity, of zeal, of pastoral and fatherly solicitude has
been quenched in our souls. We solemnly affirm it, with our anointed hands
on our hearts, and with the help of God’s grace, these sentiments shall
never depart from us through fault of ours.”

(M72) This mode of reforming, so dear to the revolutionists, is further
illustrated by the proceedings of Garibaldi in Sicily and at Naples. It
will be remembered that this hero of the revolution was eclipsed for a
time by the splendors of Solferino. Immediately after that battle he
retired into private life, and the motley troop which he commanded
disappeared. Whilst, however, there remained any revolutionary work to be
done, such a man could not be idle. The kingdom of the Two Sicilies was,
as yet, unshaken. This was too much for Count de Cavour, and so he
encouraged the ever-willing Garibaldi to fit out an armament against that
kingdom. The hero sailed for Sicily, and there, assured of
_non-intervention_ by the presence of the flags of France, England and
Sardinia, he made an easy conquest of the defenceless island. As soon as
he got possession of Palermo, and had assumed the title and powers of
dictator, he commenced, like a true revolutionist, the work of subversion.
Garibaldi, no doubt, was a man of the age, and the great diplomatic
discovery which the age had fallen upon was never wanting to him. It
served him at Naples as it had done in Sicily; and so, a mere diplomatic
idea—_non-intervention_—drove the king to Gaeta, and established the power
of the revolutionist.

(M73) As soon as Garibaldi was master in Sicily, the work of revolutionary
reform commenced. It was always the first aim of the revolutionists to
strike at civilization and civilizing influences. Churches were
desecrated, the ministers of religion insulted, religious orders
suppressed. “The Society of Jesus alone,” said the venerable superior,
Father Beckx, in his solemn protestation of 24th October, 1860, to the
King of Sardinia, “was robbed of three residences and colleges in
Lombardy; of six in the Duchy of Modena; of eleven in the Pontifical
States; nineteen in the kingdom of Naples; and fifteen in Sicily.”
“Everywhere,” adds Father Beckx, “the Society has been literally stripped
of all its property, movable and immovable. Its members, to the number of
1,500, were driven forth from their houses and the cities. They were led
by an armed force, like so many malefactors, from province to province,
cast into the public prisons, ill-treated and outraged in the most
horrible manner. They were even prevented from finding a refuge in pious
families, while in several places no consideration was had for the extreme
old age of many among them, nor for the infirmity and weakness of others.

“All these acts were perpetrated against men who were not accused of one
illegal or criminal act, without any judicial process, without allowing
any justification to be recorded. In one word, all this was consummated in
the most despotic and savage manner. If such acts had been accomplished in
a popular riot, by men blinded by passion, we might perhaps bear them in
silence. But, as all such acts have been done in the name of the Sardinian
laws; as the provisional governments established in Modena and the
Pontifical States, as well as the dictator of Sicily himself, have claimed
to be supported by the Sardinian government; and as your majesty’s name is
still invoked to sanction these iniquitous measures, I can no longer
remain a silent spectator of such enormous injustice, but in my quality of
supreme head of the order, I feel myself strictly bound to ask for justice
and satisfaction, and to protest before God and man, lest the resignation
inspired by religious meekness and forbearance should appear to be a
weakness which might be construed into an acknowledgment of guilt, or a
relinquishment of our rights. I protest solemnly, and in the best form I
can think of, against the suppression of our houses and colleges, against
the proscriptions, banishments and imprisonments, against the acts of
violence and outrage committed against the brethren bound to me by
religious ties. I protest before all Catholics, in the name of the rights
of the church sacrilegiously violated. I protest, in the name of the
benefactors and founders of our houses and colleges, whose will and
expressed intentions in founding these good works, for the interest alike
of the living and the dead, are thus nullified. I protest, in the name of
the sacred rights of property, contemned and trampled under foot by brutal
force. I protest, in the name of citizenship and the inviolability of
individual persons, of whose rights no man may be deprived without being
accused in form, arraigned and judged. I protest, in the name of humanity,
whose rights have been so shamefully outraged in the persons of so many
aged men, sick, infirm and helpless, driven from their peaceful seclusion,
left without any assistance, cast on the highways without any means of
subsistence.” Such was the revolution which Victor Emmanuel and Napoleon
III. were driven by fear, or even worse motives, to patronize and foster.
It had, in the days of its power, made France a desolation. It was now
sweeping like devouring flames over Italy, and fast approaching the city
of the Popes.

(M74) Pius IX., although not unaware of the fearful calamities with which
he was threatened, was far from allowing his mind to be shaken. He trusted
in that Providence which watches over the church. “We are as yet,” said he
on 16th February, 1860, to the lenten preachers of the time, “at the
beginning of the evils which must soon overtake us. At the same time, we
are consoled by the cheering prospect that, as calamity succeeds calamity,
the spirit of faith and of sacrifice will be proportionately developed.”

There was nothing now to be hoped for from the powers which nominally
ruled the world, but which were, in reality, under the control of the
revolution. Deprived of so great a portion of his states, and the revenue
which accrued to him therefrom, the Holy Father resolved to sustain his
failing finances by relying on the spontaneous offerings of the faithful
throughout the world. His appeal was not made in vain. The piety and zeal
of the early ages appeared to have revived. The word of the common Father
was received with reverence in the remotest lands. Offerings of “_Peter’s
pence_,” as in days of apostolic fervor, were poured into the Papal
treasury. In Europe, especially, the movement was so general as to show
that the people everywhere were resolved to act independently of their
governments, which had so shamefully become subservient to the will of the
revolution. It was scarcely necessary that the bishops should speak a word
of encouragement. In France, indeed, under a jealous and revolutionary
government, there could be no associations for the collection of Peter’s
pence. But the government could not, so far, place itself in opposition to
the religion of the country as to forbid collections in the churches; nor
could it reach such subscriptions as were offered in private dwellings. In
Belgium, although the party of unbelief, of Freemasonry and revolution,
held the reins of power, the constitution protected all citizens alike,
and so the new work which the circumstances of the church required was
accomplished by association, pretty much in the same way as the work of
the propagation of the faith. By the end of three months, there were in
Flanders no fewer than four hundred thousand associates for the collection
of Peter’s pence. In Italy, a Catholic journal, _Armonia_, collected
considerable sums of money, and caskets filled with jewels and other
precious objects. Poland, in her sorrow, was magnificently generous. And
Ireland, renewing her strength after centuries of misgovernment,
persecution and poverty, emulated the richest countries, America, Germany,
Holland and England. One of the collections at Dublin amounted to £10,000.
All these rich donations, together with thousands of addresses which bore
millions of signatures, were humbly laid at the feet of the Holy Father.

(M75) Now that it is well known that France was not less hostile than
Sardinia and the revolution, to the cause of the Pope, it appears more a
loss of labor than a wise precaution, that the Holy Father should have
assembled an army for maintaining order in his states, and repelling any
attack on the part of the revolutionary faction. This was all that he
contemplated. Deceived by the professions of his French ally, he was far
from suspecting that the small force which he was collecting for the
maintenance of order would be no sooner organized than it would be
attacked by the military power of Piedmont, supported by the Emperor of
the French. On the contrary, Pius IX. had every reason to believe that the
formation of a Pontifical army, destined for the duties which devolved on
the French soldiers, then at Rome, would be acceptable to Napoleon III.
The latter had, more than once, said to his Holiness: “Place yourself in a
position to be independent of my army of occupation.” This recommendation
is repeated in a despatch of Messrs. Thouvenel and Gramont, so late as the
14th of April, 1860. As soon as it was known that the Pope desired to have
an army for maintaining internal peace, and finally, in order to replace
the foreign troops which occupied Rome, the youth of many countries freely
offered their services. France, Belgium, Ireland, Spain, Holland, and even
distant Canada sent numerous volunteers. The noble youth of France, whose
education, for the most part, was eminently Christian, were only too happy
to tear themselves from the luxurious life of Paris. Their joy was equal
to their ardor, when they found that they could bear arms without serving
a Bonaparte. Gontants and Larochefoucauld Doudeauvilles, Noes and
Pimodans, Tournous and Bourbon Chalus, came to range themselves, as
private soldiers, when necessary, under the banner of the Pope. Nor were
they attracted by any hope of gain. A goodly number, on the contrary,
sustained by their ample means the government to which they offered their
lives. The revolution signified its displeasure by branding these devoted
youths with the ignominious title of “Mercenaries of the Pope.” This
ungracious word proceeded from the palace of Jerome Napoleon, on whom
merciless history bestows a more opprobrious epithet. As a matter of
course, it was repeated in all the revolutionary journals.

The command of the new force was offered to the brave and experienced
General Lamoriciere. At first he hesitated, the cause of the Pope, as
regarded his temporal power, was already so much compromised. Finally, on
the representation of the Reverend Count de Merode, he gave his consent.
It was pure sacrifice. No success could add to his military renown. And
success was impossible. The general distributed his soldiers, from 20,000
to 25,000 in number, in small bodies, throughout the towns of that portion
of the Papal States which still remained. This was a judicious
arrangement, as far as internal peace and order were concerned. Neither
Lamoriciere nor the Pope had any idea, so firmly did they rely on the
hollow professions of France, that a foreign army would have to be met.
The general spoke words of encouragement to his willing soldiers. “The
revolution,” said he, in an order of the day, “like Islamism of old,
threatens Europe. To-day, as in ancient times, the cause of the Papacy is
the cause of civilization and of the liberty of mankind.” The infidel
press was excited to fury, and showed, by the violence of its writing,
that the comparison of the revolution to Islamism was but too well
founded. Were not both alike ferocious? Did not both spread terror and
desolation in their track? Weigh them together—Islamism has the advantage.
In addition to all its other barbarities, the revolution violated the
temples of God and the abodes of prayer. The followers of the prophet were
commanded to respect every place where God was worshipped, and every house
where dwelt the ministers of His worship.

The organization of Lamoriciere’s army was now so complete that a friendly
convention was entered into with the Cabinet of the Tuilleries, and that
the evacuation of Rome by the French garrison should commence on the 11th
of May.

This was not at all to the liking of the revolutionists. M. de Cavour, who
had complained so loudly at the Congress of Paris that the Pope had not an
army sufficiently strong to render unnecessary the protection of France
and Austria, protested against the formation of such an army as soon as he
saw that it was seriously contemplated. He denounced it to all Europe as a
gathering of adventurers from every country, and feigned the greatest
disquietude for the new frontiers of Piedmont.

On the 4th September, 1860, Napoleon III. was at Chambery, receiving the
homage and congratulations of his Savoyard subjects. A public banquet was
held in his honor, and whilst the guests were yet at table, two
Piedmontese envoys, Messrs. Farini and Cialdini, sought a private
interview with the Emperor. Napoleon left the festive board and remained
closeted with the envoys the remainder of the evening. The result of this
conference was the immediate invasion of the Papal States by Sardinian
troops, under the command of General Cialdini. This officer reports that
he was fully authorized by Napoleon. It is even related that the Emperor,
strongly encouraging him used the words of our blessed Lord to Judas:
“_Quod facis, fac citius_.” Napoleon, indeed, denied having uttered these
words. It matters not. All his acts, at the time, expressed their meaning.
Whilst conferring with the envoys at Chambery, there lay on a table a map
of Central Italy, on which he traced in pencil and effaced several lines.
The map having been left on the table, was afterwards found to contain one
line in crayon, which was not effaced. It showed exactly the route which
Cialdini followed in marching to the destruction of the Papal army.
Between the conference of Chambery and the arrival of Cialdini on the
Pontifical territory, there elapsed precisely the time necessary for the
journey by post-carriage and railway. Seventy thousand men were waiting
for him on the frontier, ready to march as soon as he brought them the
required authorization. General Fanti, who also had an army corps
concentrated on the borders of the Marches, had already intimated to
General Lamoriciere, that if the Papal troops had recourse to force, “in
order to suppress any insurrection in the Papal State,” he would, at once,
occupy the Marches and Umbria, “in order to secure to the inhabitants full
liberty to express their wishes.” The Sardinian generals evidently wished
to raise an insurrection, but as no insurrection occurred, they managed to
do without one. In the meantime, it was thought expedient to perform a
piece of mock diplomacy. Count Delia Minerva was despatched from Turin to
Rome, charged with an _ultimatum_ to the Pope. Without diplomatic
negotiations or shadow of pretext, purely by virtue of the right of the
strongest and most audacious, the Holy Father was suddenly summoned to
dismiss his volunteers as foreigners, and was allowed four-and-twenty
hours to give his answer. But the party did not wait so long. The
_ultimatum_, of a piece with their other proceedings, was a mockery. On
10th September, before the reply of the Pope could have been known, even
before Delia Minerva had reached Rome, Generals Cialdini and Fanti,
without any previous declaration of war, passed the Pontifical frontier.
It was the barbarians once more at the gates of Rome. The orders of the
day, which the Piedmontese commanders addressed to their troops, were
inexpressibly savage. Pitiless history fails not to record them.
“Soldiers,” said Cialdini, “I lead you against a band of adventurers, whom
the thirst for gold and pillage has brought to our country. Fight,
disperse without mercy, these wretched cut-throats. Let them feel, by the
weight of our arm, the power and the anger of a people who strive to be
independent soldiers. Perugia seeks vengeance. And, although late, it
shall have it.” The language of King Victor Emmanuel, although somewhat
more politely diplomatic, was not less false and savage. His proclamation
is a master-piece of Count de Cavour’s hypocritical style. “Soldiers, you
are entering the Marches and Umbria, in order to restore civil order in
the desolated cities and to secure to the inhabitants the liberty to
express their wishes. You have not to meet powerful armies, but only to
deliver the unfortunate Italian provinces from companies of foreign
adventurers. You are not going to avenge the injuries done to Italy or to
me, but to hinder the popular hatred from wreaking vengeance on the
oppressor. You will teach by your example pardon of offences and Christian
toleration to those who compare Italian patriotism to Islamism. At peace
with all the Great Powers, and without provocation, I mean to banish from
Central Italy a constant cause of trouble and discord. I wish to respect
the seat of the Chief of the Church, &c.” Whatever this king may have
wished to do, he was compelled to obey the will of the revolution, and to
justify by his acts the comparison of the party which he patronized with
Islamism,—a comparison disparaging only to the followers of the prophet.
The ferocious sentiments to which Cialdini gave utterance were not mere
bravado. When Colonel Zappi, of the Pontifical service, dared to hold out
with 800 men at Pesaro, and check for two-and-twenty hours the whole
Piedmontese army before this village, Cialdini, instead of admiring such
bravery, refused to cease firing, when Zappi, crushed by numbers, was at
last obliged to capitulate. For two hours longer he took pleasure in
discharging grape shot at the little town which had ceased to reply
otherwise than by exhibiting a white flag and sending messengers of peace.
Nor did this vandalic soldier show any consideration for the wishes of the
people whom he professed to have come to protect. This contempt for the
popular will was sufficiently well shown the following month, in his
despatch to the Garibaldian Commander of Molise: “Publish that I cause to
be shot all peasants taken with arms in their hands. I have this day
commenced such executions.”

(M76) Lamoriciere was far from expecting to be attacked by the armies of
Piedmont. The most he could contemplate was an attack by the Garibaldians,
and the probability of some partial insurrections in the interior. He
distributed his troops accordingly in the towns and along the Neapolitan
frontier. The insolent message of General Fanti contributed to confirm him
in this idea. He had only 1,500 men with him when the message reached him.
He held himself in readiness, but without concentrating his force, which
appeared to him dangerous and premature. He learned, unexpectedly, that
the frontier on the side of Piedmont was violated at every point of attack
at the same time; that an army corps, commanded by General de Sonnaz, was
marching on Perugia; another, led by Brignone, on Spoleto; another, under
the Garibaldian Mazi, on Orvieto; finally, that Cialdini was advancing on
Sinigaglia, thence on Torrede Jesi, Castelfidardo and Loretto, and that
his object was Ancona, the only city except Rome which was capable of
making any resistance. Lamoriciere, unable to face so many enemies at
once, saw, with pain, that his scattered garrisons were lost. He was far,
however, from being discouraged. Recalling, hastily, all that were within
reach, and unfortunately they were not the most considerable, he changed
all the arrangements which he had made for another kind of contest; he
gave up all idea of opposing Brignone, De Sonnaz and Fanti, who,
nevertheless, were in a position to cut off his retreat towards Rome, and
rushed boldly to the point of greatest danger between these generals and
Cialdini, with the design of piercing the lines of the latter and reaching
Ancona before him. There he thought he would be able to hold out a week or
two, more than sufficient time for France and the other civilized nations
to come to his assistance. He, a French general, relied on France, so
completely were Frenchmen deceived. He also trusted, and with better
grounds, to Austria. This confidence emboldened him to reply defiantly to
the insolent message of General Fanti: “We are only a handful of men. But
a Frenchman counts not his enemies, and France will support us.”

Before the invasion took place, the Ambassador of France, the Duke of
Gramont, whose word was corroborated by the presence of a French army at
Rome and in the neighborhood, had, several times, reassured Cardinal
Antonelli, who was much disquieted, affirming that the concentration of
Piedmontese troops was intended to check the banditti, and protect the
Pontifical frontier, but would not attack it. Lamoriciere testifies to
this fact in the report of his operations. When there was no longer any
doubt as regarded the violation of Papal territory, the Ambassador,
Gramont, communicated to Cardinal Antonelli, and telegraphed, in clear and
distinct language, to the Vice-Consul of France, at Ancona, the following
despatch: “The Emperor has written from Marseilles to the King of
Sardinia, that if the Piedmontese troops advance on the Pontifical
territory he will be compelled to oppose them. Orders are already given
for the embarkation of troops at Toulon; and these re-inforcements will
forthwith arrive. The government of the Emperor will not tolerate the
criminal attack of the Sardinians. As Vice-Consul of France, you will
govern yourself accordingly.” M. de Courcy, the Vice-Consul, to whom the
despatch was addressed, took it immediately to M. de Quatrebarbes, the
civil governor of Ancona. His great age would not admit of his carrying it
in person to Cialdini, but he lost no time in sending it by an employee of
the Consulate, making no doubt that a despatch which bore the signature of
France would prevent bloodshed. He was mistaken. Cialdini read the paper,
and coolly put it in his pocket, saying: “I know more about these matters
than you. I have just had an interview with the Emperor.” When the clerk
asked for a receipt, he signed one, remarking that “it would make a good
addition to other diplomatic papers.” He then continued to advance. The
general was no less explicit, a few days later, at Loretto, when
conversing with Count Bourbon Busset and other prisoners taken at
Castelfidardo. “You astonish me, gentlemen,” said he; “how could you for a
moment entertain the idea that we would have occupied the Pontifical State
without the full consent of the government of your country!” As one of the
bystanders, in reply to Cialdini, alluded to the fact which was announced,
of the disembarkation of a new French division at Civita Vecchia, “And to
what purpose?” answered one of the higher officers of Cialdini’s staff.
“France has no need to re-inforce her army of occupation. See these wires,
gentlemen (pointing to the telegraph), if they chose to speak they would
suffice to stop us at once.” It would have been impossible to express more
plainly the omnipotence at that moment of the conqueror of Solferino, and
the fearful stigma which he was preparing for his memory. Not only did he
disorganize the defence, the responsibility, &c., of which he was
understood to have assumed, not only did he deceive the Court of Rome, and
inspire it with a false security, as if it had been his purpose more
surely to throw Lamoriciere into the snares of Cialdini; but, at the same
time, he paralyzed the good intention of the Powers that were sincerely
devoted to the Holy See.

Francis Joseph, Emperor of Austria, had dreaded, a month before it
occurred, an invasion of the Pontifical State. His army divisions of the
Mincio were on a war footing. It was only necessary that they should pass
the river and march against Piedmont. An order to this effect was signed.
But before despatching the order, and taking on himself such great
responsibility, the youthful Emperor, who had been none the better for
giving way to his chivalrous impulses in 1859, resolved to call a meeting
of his ministers and chief generals. Addressing this grave assembly, he
stated distinctly the new situation in which Austria was placed by the
violation of recent treaties, and the obligation under which he lay of
opposing such proceedings by arms. His duty as a Catholic was concerned as
well as his honor and interest as a sovereign. It appeared, besides, that
God had blinded the revolution, and the invasion was so odious that
Piedmont would not find a single ally. “I have signed,” he added, “an
order to pass to-morrow into Lombardy. Together with this, I have
addressed a manifesto to Europe, in which I declare that I will respect
and cause to be respected the treaty of Zurich. Lombardy does not now
belong to me. I have ceded it, and I do not recall my word; but I require
that the clauses which are burdensome to Austria shall not alone be
executed. I claim, at the same time, the incontestible rights of my
cousins of Florence, Parma and Modena, so unworthily robbed by one of
those who signed and guaranteed the treaty. Finally, I require that the
neutrality of the Pope and the integrity of his territory be respected;
for the Pope is my ally, as a sovereign, and as the Chief of the Church,
my Father. The fleet of Trieste will, at the same time, cruise before
Ancona.” This noble address was followed by profound silence. The attitude
of several of the bystanders was expressive of doubt when the Emperor
affirmed that the brutality of the Piedmontese aggression would alone
suffice to prevent any one from making common cause with it. The Count de
Thun at length rose. He acknowledged the manifestly just grievances of
Austria, and admired the manly resolution of the Emperor. He then set
forth the dangers of every kind which this resolution would cause to
arise. The army had not yet repaired its losses; the wounds of Magenta and
Solferino were still bleeding. The French would, once more, pass the Alps,
and the revolution, far from being stifled, would be more threatening than
ever.

“If my crown must be broken,” interposed the Emperor, “I prefer losing it
at the gates of the Vatican, in defence of justice and religion, than
under the walls of Vienna or Presburgh by the hands of the
revolutionists.” “Sire,” replied Count de Thun, “whether at Presburgh or
the Vatican, you will always find us by your side, ready to conquer or
perish honorably with you. But allow me to repeat that there is not
question only of commencing a struggle against the two-fold revolution of
the King of Sardinia. If France once more comes to his support, who will
be our auxiliaries? What alliances have we, so necessary in case of
reverse? Our cruel experience of last year only shows too plainly that we
have none; and that Prussia has an understanding with France. And if the
war continues any time, if the revolution throws into the arms of Russia
Hungary, and our Sclav provinces, and gives to Prussia our German
countries, what will become of the great Catholic Empire of Germany? Will
not your majesty have hastened, without intending it, the satisfaction of
that cupidity which is everywhere aiming at our ruin, and the triumph
either of Protestantism or the Greek schism?” Francis Joseph replied by
describing the not less serious dangers which the triumph of the Italian
revolution would occasion to the tranquillity and integrity of the Empire.
He could not but foresee how precarious Austrian rule would become at
Venice, and how impossible it would be to preserve, for any length of
time, the last remains of the Pontifical State, once the King of Piedmont
was master of the rest of the peninsula. The struggle, by being delayed,
could not be avoided. We should only have to undertake it later against a
usurper consolidated by time, and with less manifest evidence of right on
our side. But the embarrassments of the moment engaged the thoughts of his
ministers more than those of the future. All the ministers dissenting from
his opinion, the Emperor made up his mind, after two hours’ discussion, to
recall the order which he had signed. The Austrian fleet continued at
anchor in the harbor of Trieste, and the army of the Mincio remained
inactive, although, as may be supposed, indignant, in its quadrilateral,
until Italian unity became a reality, and coalesced with Prussia in order
to expel it.

There must now be recorded another proof of the Emperor Napoleon’s double
dealing. On 13th September, M. Thouvenel wrote to Baron de Talleyrand, the
Ambassador of France at Turin: “The Emperor has decided that you must
leave Turin immediately, in order to show his firm determination to
decline all partnership in acts which his counsels, that were given in the
interests of Italy, have not been able to prevent.” Vain pretence!
inexorable history accepts not such apologies.

With the exception of the Piedmontese, and perhaps also the Austrian
ministers, there were none in Europe having knowledge of this document,
and the despatch of M. de Gramont to the Consul of Ancona, who did not
believe that a rupture was imminent, if it had not already taken place,
between the Emperor Napoleon and King Victor Emmanuel. General Lamoriciere
was too upright and loyal-minded not to fall into the snare. He wrote
promptly to Mgr. de Merode, asking him to send provisions to Ancona, where
he purposed establishing his quarters, not having had time to prepare for
battle in the open country. He had no disquietude as regarded Umbria. He
left it to be defended by France. He hoped also that General de Goyon
would not confine himself to guarding the walls of Rome, and that he
would, at least, prevent invasion from the direction of Naples, and by way
of the valley of Orvieto. He was confident that France would finally
intervene. And it would be highly advantageous if, in the meantime, French
troops garrisoned Viterbo, Velletri and Orvieto.

The declarations of Napoleon were like the despatches of Messrs. Thouvenel
and Gramont, nothing better than empty words—“diplomatic papers,” as
Cialdini contemptuously called them. His only object was to lull public
opinion, and let the Piedmontese have the advantage of a _fait accompli_.
Of this there was no room to doubt, when, a little later, he took
officially under his protection the fruit of that criminal aggression
against which he had so loudly protested. Either from weakness or
treachery he was an accomplice, and played a preconcerted game. At first
he may have been sincere in threatening, in the hope of intimidating the
revolution. But when there was question of acting, and he knew that it
defied him, he recoiled. French historians remark, with pain, that this
was a sad alternative, as regards the memory of a man who had the honor to
govern France—the nation, more than all others, renowned for chivalry. It
was also a rebuke to that nation which was so weak as to submit, for
twenty years, to his rule. His friends are brought to the extremity of
demonstrating that he was a coward, if they wish to hinder mankind from
believing that he was a traitor.

Meanwhile, Lamoriciere, by forced marches, on the 16th September, reached
Loretto, from which the enemy withdrew at his approach. His inconsiderable
force counted scarcely 3,000 combatants, viz.: 2,000 infantry, 800
troopers, and 200 artillerymen. But he had given rendezvous at the spot to
the general, Marquis of Pimodan, who brought to him from Terai 2,000
infantry, and arrived a little before night, on the 17th. Thus did it fall
to his lot, with 5,000 men at most, and some old artillery which had not
been sufficiently exercised, to face Cialdini, who had, at the moment,
45,000 men, and was provided with rifled cannon. An engagement on the 18th
was inevitable. The Piedmontese were echeloned along the hills which fill
the declivity from Castelfidardo towards the plain, and extend to within
500 metres of the small river Musone. Their artillery swept the
declivities in all directions. They occupied, in strength, two farms which
were situated, the one 600 metres behind the other, towards the principal
hill. By delaying longer, Lamoriciere would only have exposed himself to
be surrounded and compelled to lay down his arms. At four o’clock in the
morning, the soldiers of the Pope, with the two generals at their head,
prepared for death, by devoutly participating in the most holy sacrament
of the Eucharist. At eight, Pimodan rushed upon the two farms already
mentioned. His watchword was to carry them and hold them as long as
possible, as they commanded the pass of Musone, where the bulk of the
army, with the baggage, must defile, and there was no other way than this
pass by which the route of Ancona could be gained. The first farm,
although warmly defended, was carried, and a hundred prisoners were taken.
Six six-pounders were immediately brought up, in order to protect the
position against a fresh attack of the enemy. Captain Richter, who
commanded them, under the orders of Colonel Blumenstihl, was pierced in
the thigh by a ball; he would not, however, leave the field, but remained
in the midst of the fire. Two howitzers, commanded by Lieutenant Dandier,
with the aid of a hundred Irishmen, who had arrived the night before from
Spoleto, were placed in the open space in front of the farm, exposed to
the grape shot of the Piedmontese, to which they replied as if they had
been in force. Unfortunately, all parties did not do their duty so well.
Pimodan was obliged to dismiss, on the battle-field, the commander of the
First Battalion of _Chasseurs_. “The moment had come,” says Lamoriciere in
his report, “to attack the second farm. General Pimodan formed a small
column, under the orders of Commandant Becdelievre, composed of the
Battalion of Belgian Fusiliers, of a detachment of Carabiniers, and of the
First Battalion of _Chasseurs_. This column boldly advanced,
notwithstanding a most active fusilade from the farm and the wood. There
were 500 metres to march over thus exposed. But when about a hundred and
fifty feet from the summit of the hill it was received by the fire of two
ranks of a strong line of battle, which put so great a number of the men
_hors de combat_ that it was obliged to fall back. The enemy pursued. But
when he had nearly reached our troops, the column faced round, waited for
him at fifteen paces distance, received him with a well-directed fire, and
rushed on him with the bayonet. Astonished at so much daring and coolness,
the enemy, although superior in number, fell back in his turn, and thus
allowed our soldiers to regain the position which they had left. The fire
of our artillery, which was well supplied and well directed, protected
these movements. The enemy had lost more men; but, relatively, our losses
were more felt than his. Pimodan had been wounded in the face; but,
nevertheless, he retained his command. I observed that his two battalions
and a half were not sufficiently strong to carry the second position; so I
sent for the two reserve battalions, and ordered the cavalry to pass the
river, and follow on our right flank the march of our columns. During this
time the enemy had endeavored to overwhelm us on both sides. Major
Becdelievre brought together what remained of his battalion, rushed upon
the fusileers and forced them back into the wood whence they had come.”
These were splendid feats of arms. But the excessive inferiority of
Lamoriciere’s artillery and numbers made victory impossible. The
revolution had its emissaries enrolled as soldiers in the Pontifical army.
One of these, by a traitorous blow from behind, slew the brave Pimodan in
the height of the battle. These traitors also caused a panic at the
decisive moment by spreading false alarms. The youthful soldiers of the
reserve, who had never seen fire, became demoralized, and fled in
confusion, without hearing the sound of a single ball. Others followed.
The artillery, now no longer supported, and, fearing to be taken, sought
safety in flight. But instead of gaining the road to Ancona, it fell back
on Loretto, where it could not fail to fall into the hands of the enemy.
Lamoriciere, always calm in such terrible discomfiture, made unheard-of
exertions, as did also his aids-de-camp, Messrs. de Maistre, de Lorgeril,
de Robiano, de France and Montmarin, in endeavoring to guide the
precipitate retreat. His orders either were not conveyed or were not
executed. Then, as was his custom in Africa, he hurried alone on horseback
to within a hundred feet of the lines, in order to ascertain the
situation, rejoined his staff, labored to stay the flight, and when all
was lost, he executed, with five-and-forty horse and a hundred infantry, a
movement which with the army was impossible. He took the route of Ancona,
which a Piedmontese squadron was preparing to bombard, and reached that
place by five o’clock in the evening. The brave Franco-Belgians sacrificed
themselves in order to save the rest of the army. They held out in the
farm which they had occupied as long as their ammunition lasted. The
neighboring fields and hedges were covered with dead and wounded
Piedmontese; but they themselves were all either killed or taken. Among
the slain and wounded were many of the best nobility of Europe—Paul de
Percevaux, Edme de Montagnac, Arthur de Chalus, Hyacinth de Lanascol,
Alfege du Baudier, Joseph Guerin, Georges de Haliand, Felix de Montravel,
Alfred de la Barre de Nanteuil, Thierry du Fougeray, Leopold de Lippe,
Gaston du Plessis de Grenedan, Raoul Dumanoir, Lanfranc de Beccary,
Alphonse Menard, Guelton, Rogatien Picon, Anseline de Puisage, George
Myonnet. Such are a few of those noble youths who fell victims to their
zeal and bravery when engaged with General Lamoriciere in his hopeless
attempt to stem the overwhelming tide of revolution which, at the time,
successfully defied all the Powers of Europe to move an arm in opposition
to it.

Lamoriciere succeeded in reaching Ancona, but only to prolong, for a few
days more, a desperate contest. The available force in the place amounted
only to 4,200 effective men, a number quite insufficient to man all the
posts of such extensive fortifications. The general did not yet despair of
aid from the French at Rome, and he flattered himself with the idea that
if he only held out a few days, Austria and the other Catholic States
would be shamed into activity. They, however, knew too well the intentions
of France, and France had won the battle of Solferino. The brave
Lamoriciere was assailed in his last retreat, both by sea and land. The
bombardment lasted ten days, and was heard at Venice, the islands of
Dalmatia, and even at Trieste. But not a friendly sail appeared in support
of the besieged. The prolonged struggle did not even attract such vessels
of neutral Powers as are commonly sent for the protection of their consuls
and others of their respective nations, as well as to offer their good
services to women, children and other non-combatants. Such disgraceful
conduct was condemned alike by the Protestant and Catholic press of
Europe. The London _Times_ reproached M. de Cavour with not having
understood that “candid and honorable conduct is not incompatible with
patriotism.” The same paper quoted, in this connection, the words of
Manin, which are a condemnation of the whole conduct of the Piedmontese
under Victor Emmanuel: “Means which the moral sense repels, even when they
are materially profitable, deal a mortal blow to a cause. No victory can
be put in comparison with the absence of self-respect.” Ancona was yet
undergoing bombardment, when the three sovereigns of the North, who alone
could have undertaken efficaciously the defence of the violated law of
nations, met at Warsaw; and Napoleon III. presented to them a memorandum
by which he engaged to abandon Piedmont in the event of her attacking
Venice. But “he presupposed that the German Powers would also confine
themselves to an attitude of abstention, and would avoid furnishing a
pretext for an Italian attack of Austria.” At length, the Piedmontese
fleet, under Admiral Persano, succeeded in demolishing the more important
portion of the fortifications of Ancona. A white flag was now displayed on
the citadel and all the lesser forts; and Major Mauri was sent on board
the admiral’s ship to negotiate a capitulation. The firing ceased on both
sides. But now occurred a circumstance which stigmatizes to all time the
character of the Piedmontese generals, Fanti and Cialdini. M. de
Quatrebarbes relates, “that whilst the conditions of capitulation were
under discussion, the land army, furious at having been repelled, and at
having done nothing that could contribute towards the taking of the city,
recommenced firing along the whole line. The bombardment and cannonade
continued from nine o’clock in the evening of the 28th until nine in the
morning of the 29th, and that, although negotiators had been sent, and
bells had been rung, announcing the cessation of hostilities, in defiance
even of a very pressing letter of the admiral, who would not participate
in such an infamous proceeding. He also recalled on board his ships the
marine who served a land battery. All this time not a single cannon was
fired from the city. Thus the Piedmontese army bombarded incessantly for
twelve hours a defenceless town, in violation of the law of nations, and
all sentiments of honor and humanity. Admiral Persano himself reported at
Turin the refusal of the land army to cease firing. Such a fact must
excite the indignation of all right-thinking people.” The revolution was
highly offended when compared to Islamism. Are the regular troops of Islam
accused of such barbarities? The Bashi-Bazouks could not have done worse.

When the capitulation was signed at two o’clock in the afternoon of the
29th, the small Pontifical army had ceased to exist, and the Piedmontese,
now free to follow out their plans, could go to join the bands of
Garibaldi, under the walls of Gaeta, and, together with him, complete “the
extirpation of the Papal cancer,” or, as one of their school, Pinelli,
said, “Crush the sacerdotal vampire.” But although right had been trampled
down, it knew how to do battle and to die. “For the first time,” observed
a Protestant journal, the new Gazette of Prussia, “a general of the party
of legality has dared to lead his troops against the enemy. For the first
time the revolution has been met in the field of battle. The effort has
not been successful. We know it. And as we repeatedly said beforehand, we
had no hope that it would. But the defeat of Lamoriciere raises the mind
by contrast. For a long time we had been accustomed to the triumphs of
cowardice, treachery and corruption, of all which the victories of
Garibaldi presented such a disgusting spectacle. We are assured that the
Pontifical troops did their duty unto death. This is enough. It is easily
understood how the adversaries of the revolution had become humble. For
years they could only record the victories of their enemies. But if, at
Castelfidardo, a few individuals were defeated, the principle of legality
was at last asserted. Now, if men contend in battle for a principle its
final triumph is assured.”

It was to be expected that Pius the Ninth would avenge the memory of the
brave men who had been branded by the name of _Mercenaries_, the greater
number of whom served without pay. No wonder if he did justice on the
pretended moral order which Piedmont said it had come to restore in the
States of the Church. Not only did he honor their noble efforts, he also
founded at his own cost, and for their benefit, the chaplaincy of
Castelfidardo in the sanctuary of the Scala Santa. He ordered the funeral
obsequies of General Pimodan to be celebrated with becoming magnificence,
and composed himself an inscription for his tomb in the French Church of
St. Louis. He wished to confer on Lamoriciere the title of Roman Count.
But the defeated hero declined the honor, saying that he desired always to
be called Leon de la Moriciere. Pius IX. then addressed him a few words,
which recall the piety of early times: “I send you what, at least, you
cannot refuse, the order of Christ, for whom you have combated, and who
will, I trust, be your reward as well as mine.”

In France the government showed its revolutionary leaning by forbidding a
subscription which was undertaken for the purpose of presenting a sword of
honor to Lamoriciere. It did even worse than this. It meanly persecuted
the vanquished soldiers of the Holy See, as well as those who had hastened
to fill their places. This was pure revenge. And now that the success of
Piedmont was no longer doubtful, it could serve no other purpose than to
establish the fact of the Emperor’s complicity. Such of the soldiers of
the Pope as were natives of France were deprived of their rights of
citizenship. Thus were noble youths, the flower of France, on their return
from Castelfidardo and Ancona, deprived of the electoral franchise, and
stripped of their right to serve on juries and in the army. Some even were
interdicted from inheriting property on the pretext that, as strangers,
their signatures required to be legalized. These men were, nevertheless,
the actual defenders of a sovereign whom the government pretended to
defend officially. The revolutionary papers audaciously said that the same
law was not applicable to such French subjects as joined the bands of
Garibaldi, on the ground that these bands were neither a government nor a
military corporation. This odd interpretation completely met the views of
ministerial jurisprudence; and so was presented the extraordinary
spectacle of a country outlawing such of her children as served the same
cause as her army, and in nowise molesting those who supported the
opposite side. All political allusions in the pulpit were now repressed
with increased severity. The bishops, however, could not be intimidated.
Besides, as they could not be displaced, they were not so easily reached.
Mgr. Pie, the eminent Bishop of Poitiers, ascended the pulpit the Sunday
after the battle. “My brethren,” said he, “you all expected of me that I
would speak to-day in my cathedral. It is according to the customs of the
church to know how to honor her defenders, and to mourn for them when
dead. And because, having taken upon myself a responsibility which I
decline not, and having encouraged and blessed the departure of several of
those youthful volunteers, I would be ashamed of myself if now, restrained
by the fears arising from a pusillanimous prudence, I did not offer them
the homage of my admiration together with that of my prayers. Your
sympathies are already with my words. If they gave offence to any hearers,
I would, indeed, be afflicted. But, by the grace of God, the country which
we inhabit is called France, which warrants, or rather commands, that I
should be candid.” In the absence of that fame which victory confers, the
vanquished were consoled by that immortality which eloquence bestows on
those whom it celebrates. So long as the great art of oratory shall be
appreciated in the countries of Fenelon and Bossuet, the funeral orations
on Lamoriciere, by Bishops Pie and Dupanloup, together with the fine pages
on the heroes of Castelfidardo, by Bishop Gerbet of Perpignan, Mgr.
Plantier of Nismes, and other writers, will not cease to be read.

“They died in order to defend us,” said, as if prophetically, Archbishop
Manning, who succeeded Cardinal Wiseman in the new See of Westminster,
already so illustrious; “the cause for which they fell is our cause. They
are blind, indeed, who cannot see that what has been begun by the head
will soon be undertaken against all the members; that the attacks will
extend rapidly from the centre to the extremities; that revolutionary
tyranny and the despotism of civil power will strive to establish
everywhere, in detail, the domination which they are endeavoring to
exercise over the will and the person of the Holy Father. We are at the
commencement of a new era of penal laws against the liberty of the church.
It is for us, therefore, that they have given their life. They died whilst
the profane world loaded them with its curses, as died the martyrs in the
Flavian amphitheatre, whilst the cry resounded, ‘The Christians to the
lions!’ (_Christianas ad leones_), and in presence of thousands of
spectators of the Imperial and Patrician families of Rome, and for the
gratification of the multitude which thirsted for blood, and such blood as
was most noble and innocent. Thus died He who is greater than the martyrs,
assailed by the insults of the Pharisees and the jeers of the ignorant
masses. It is, therefore, glorious to die for a cause which the world will
not and cannot understand. If they had died to defend commercial
establishments against the indigenous inhabitants of some distant country,
or to repel the attacks of a neighbor, or to maintain the integrity of the
Ottoman Empire, the world would have understood and honored them, as it
did in regard to the combatants of Alma and Inkerman. But, to fall in
battle for the independence of the Sovereign Pontificate, to sacrifice
themselves for the liberty of Christian consciences, and that of the
generations to come—this the world understands not, and for this we
proclaim them great and glorious among departed heroes.”

Four months later, Mgr. Pie was obliged to refute a new pamphlet,
entitled, “_France, Rome and Italy_,” and so endeavor to prevent new
iniquities. He feared not to formulate the following terrible rebuke,
which was denounced as seditious, but which history has already confirmed
as a sentence:

“Pilate had it in his power to save Christ, and without Pilate He could
not be put to death. The death-warrant could only come from him; _nobis
non licet interficere_, said the Jews. Wash thy hands, O Pilate! declare
thyself guiltless of the death of Christ. Our only answer every day will
be, and the latest posterity will repeat the same: I believe in Jesus
Christ, the only Son of the Father, who was conceived of the Holy Ghost,
who was born of the Virgin Mary, who suffered death and passion under
Pontius Pilate; _Quipassus est sub Pontio Pilato_.”

It was no secret when these words were spoken, as it was to Lamoriciere
and his brave army, that the government of the French Emperor encouraged
and patronized the iniquitous aggressions of Piedmont, whilst it
pretended, in the face of Europe, to support the Holy See.

(M77) “It was not Garibaldi and his volunteers,” said the Revue des deux
Mondes, “that General Lamoriciere had to fight; the odds in that case
would not have been so unequal. But he had the regular army of Piedmont
before him—an army six times more numerous than his own. Nor was it the
attack merely of a revolutionary party which was now directed against the
temporal power of the Papacy. It was a government incomparably more
powerful than the Pope’s, which decreed arbitrarily itself alone, and in
the face of the other nations of the world, the suppression of this power,
and which accomplished that suppression by the irresistible force of its
arms, and under the eyes of our garrison in Rome.” Whilst Austria, not
from any want of sympathy with the Holy See, but from the dread her
cautious ministry, who had penetrated the designs of France, entertained
of a new French invasion, looked tamely on from the heights of her
quadrilateral, the French Emperor secretly expressed his approval of the
Piedmontese attack on the Papal States, and at the same time publicly
withdrew his ambassador at Turin, as a protest in the face of mankind
against this unprovoked and unjustifiable attack. England, which could not
be supposed to have much sympathy with the Holy See, notwithstanding the
declarations of her best statesmen in support of the temporal sovereignty,
openly pronounced in favor of the Piedmontese aggression on the Pope, who,
in trying times, had been her most faithful ally. But the days of the
elder Bonaparte were forgotten, and too much could not be done to
conciliate the new ally whom the English had found in the second
Bonaparte. So their representative, Sir John Hudson, remained at Turin,
and was the confidential adviser there of Count de Cavour, while Sir Henry
Elliot continued to reside at Naples after that city had become the
headquarters of Garibaldi. The great Northern Powers, Russia and Prussia,
acted a more honorable part. Even before the fall of Ancona was known,
they both withdrew their ambassadors from Turin. Von Schleinitz, the
Prussian Prime Minister, protested energetically against the unwarrantable
aggression of Piedmont. M. de Cavour, who understood the tendencies of the
time, replied to Von Schleinitz, as if uttering a prophecy: “I regret that
the Court of Berlin should judge so severely the conduct of the king and
his government. I am conscious of acting in the interests of my sovereign
and my country. I might reply successfully to what M. Von Schleinitz says.
But, be that as it may, I console myself with the thought that, on the
present occasion, I am setting an example which Prussia, within a short
time probably, will be happy to follow.”

The cannonade had scarcely ceased to be heard at Ancona, when the Holy
Father raised his voice in a consistorial allocution of 28th September,
which, although addressed to the cardinals, is intended for the whole
civilized world. The allocution briefly enumerates the several acts of
aggression successively committed by the Piedmontese. It then alludes to
Cavour’s audacious letter, which was intended as a justification
beforehand of the violation of territory, and the fearful bloodshed which
followed. It expresses the false accusations, the repeated calumnies and
insults which were put forward as a pretext for the invasion. It also
rebukes “the singular malignity with which the Piedmontese government
dared to call the Pontifical soldiers _mercenaries_, when so many of them,
both Italians and foreigners, were of noble lineage, bearing illustrious
names, and had resolved to serve in our troops without pay, and for the
sole love of our holy religion.” The fact is established, to the disgrace
of Piedmont, that the Papal government “could have had no intimation of
the enemy’s purpose. The general-in-chief commanding our forces could not
have entertained the thought of having to contend with the soldiers of
Piedmont.” The meed of praise is awarded to the fallen warriors, together
with the expression of unfeigned sorrow for their loss: “Whilst we must
bestow merited praise on the general, his officers and his men, we can
scarcely restrain our tears as we remember all those brave soldiers, those
noble young men especially, who had been impelled by faith and their own
generous hearts to fly to the defence of the temporal power of the Roman
Church, and who have met with their death in this cruel and unjust
invasion. We are deeply moved by the grief of their families; and would to
God it were in our power, by any word of ours, to dry up the source of
their tears!” If anything could be worse than the savage and murderous
attack of Piedmont, it was the hypocritical pretence under which it was
undertaken. The invaders came as “the restorers of moral order and as the
preachers of tolerance and charity.” The allocution concludes by
denouncing this hypocrisy, together with the diplomatic principle of
non-intervention, of which France and Piedmont set such brilliant
examples.

(M78) The King of Sardinia having violently seized Umbria and the Marches
of Ancona, must also have a mock plebiscitum, in order, no doubt, to make
it appear that these provinces were spontaneously annexed to his kingdom.
The fall of Gaeta and the conquest of Naples by Garibaldi encouraged the
ambitious monarch in these unjustifiable annexations, and although
generally condemned by the European press, he most audaciously issued a
proclamation in reply to the Papal allocution. All these nefarious acts,
together with the outrages everywhere perpetrated against all who remained
loyal to the Holy See and faithful to the sacred laws of the church,
induced the Holy Father to publish the now celebrated allocution of March
18th, 1861. This allocution is perhaps the greatest doctrinal utterance of
the Pontificate of Pius IX. But it must be considered in connection with
the _syllabus_, which will now shortly be noticed.

The Emperor Napoleon had, indeed, suspended public diplomatic relations
with the court of Turin. This was intended merely as a blind, for he
continued to negotiate secretly, through Prince Jerome Napoleon,
concerning Rome, and what yet remained to the Pope of his states. He
appeared to bind Piedmont to respect the sovereignty and independence of
the Holy See, and had no objections that the Pope should raise an army
designed only for defensive purposes. On such conditions the Emperor would
acknowledge the new kingdom of Italy. In all this there was a want of
sincerity. Count Cavour, Prince Napoleon and the Emperor, were perfectly
agreed that the Holy Father was, in due course of time, to be given up to
his enemies.

(M79) In order to prepare the world for this consummation of
Franco-Sardinian policy, there appeared a new pamphlet, entitled _La
France, Rome et l’Italie_. It was signed by M. de la Gueronniere, and
published on the 7th day of March. It was suggested, if not actually
written, by the Emperor himself. The allocution already alluded to, dealt
by anticipation with the chief points of this publication. It was,
however, directly replied to in a letter of the eminent Cardinal
Antonelli, to the Papal Minister at Paris. The cardinal begins by stating
that the chief object of the pamphlet was “to throw on the Holy Father and
his government the responsibility of the condition to which Italy and the
Pontifical States in particular were reduced.” He then proceeds lucidly,
logically, and not without eloquence, to attack all the positions assumed
by the writer, and exposes the treachery, baseness and duplicity of the
principal adversaries of the Holy See in its long struggle with
revolutionary Piedmont, supported as it was by the Emperor Napoleon III.
It will be recollected that it had been proposed, indeed it was one of the
articles of the treaty of Zurich, that there should be a confederation of
the States of Italy. The writer of the pamphlet audaciously accused the
Pope of having rejected the plan of an Italian confederacy, just as if he
and not the Emperor and his ally, the King of Piedmont, had violated the
treaty which succeeded the battle of Solferino. “The official proposition
of such a confederacy,” the cardinal states, “and of its presidency came
only after the preliminaries of Villafranca and the treaty of Zurich; and
the Holy Father showed himself disposed to accept it as soon as its basis
should be defined. The author, nevertheless, says that it was then too
late. He does not, in saying so, seem to perceive that he seriously
insults his own sovereign, as if he and the other Powers had proposed as
the basis of a solemn treaty and the great means of conciliation, a thing
which was at that moment neither possible nor opportune. Be that as it
may, it was only then that the proposition was made by the person
authorized to make it; and it is unjust to pretend that his Holiness had
taken any action thereon before it was laid before him. Since, therefore,
the plan fell through independently of his refusal, how can he, without a
positive act of calumny, be accused of obstinacy on this point?”

The cardinal’s letter is of great length. In one place he recapitulates
the heads of accusation contained in the pamphlet. “Putting aside,” says
he, “the unfounded assertions, the matters foreign to the case, which
helped to fill up the pamphlet, the obstinacy which it imputes to the Holy
Father amounts to his having declined an abdication which his conscience
condemned, to his having deferred some reforms that were promised till the
revolted provinces had returned to their allegiance; to his having
proposed to recruit an army for himself instead of accepting the troops
offered to him; to his having preferred the voluntary offerings of the
faithful to subsidies furnished by governments which are not all nor
always equally disposed to be friendly. And these acts of firmness, of
noble disinterestedness, which must appear most praiseworthy to the
unprejudiced mind, which have appeared and do still appear worthy of the
admiration of Protestants, seem, on the other hand, to the Catholic author
of the pamphlet, to be so blameworthy that he could not find more bitter
words of censure were he to write against those who are alone responsible
for the sad disorders of the present time. But this is precisely what is
of a nature to surprise us. The Imperial government of France had given
advice to his Holiness; it had also given advice to the Piedmontese
government. Now, if the Holy Father must be accused of not having followed
such advice, the Piedmontese government does not seem to have been more
docile. His Holiness did not deem it expedient to do some things desired
by the French government. But Piedmont did a great many things which the
French government had publicly declared it was opposed to. The Imperial
government forbade the violation of the neutrality of the Papal States;
and to this the Piedmontese government responded by occupying the Romagna.
The Imperial government disapproved annexation; and the Piedmontese
government only answered by accomplishing annexation. The Imperial
government forbade, in threatening language, the invasion of the Marches
and Umbria; and the Piedmontese government responded by pouring grape shot
into the small Pontifical army, by bombarding Ancona from sea and land,
and by refusing to observe any of the laws of war acknowledged by all
civilized nations. The author of the pamphlet allows his pen the most
cruel license against the Holy See, but has not one single word of blame
for the Piedmontese government. Who can explain such an attitude? The
explanation is a very natural one, and is given on the last page of the
pamphlet, where the author tells us that the Emperor of the French _cannot
sacrifice Italy to the Court of Rome, nor give up the Papacy to the
revolution_; which means that the Court of Rome must be sacrificed to the
exigencies of the peninsula, that the temporal dominion of the Holy See
must be done away with, because it is in the way of the unification of
Italy, and that this suppression is to prevent the Papacy or the spiritual
power from falling beneath the blows of the revolution.” It cannot fail to
be remarked that in all the French Emperor’s manifestos appears the
pretext of protecting the Papacy from the revolution, whilst, but for his
interference, it needed not such protection. Pius IX. was quite able to
contend successfully against whatever revolutionary element there was in
the Pontifical States. With the aid of his allies, he could also have
repelled the attacks of Piedmont, if unsupported by the French. But
against a Power so great that it could command the non-intervention of all
other Powers, he was powerless. It may have afforded a momentary pleasure
to the Carbonaro Prince, Napoleon III., to annihilate, for the sake of his
way of promoting Italian unification, the time-honored sovereignty of the
Pope. It afforded him no lasting benefit. Germany caught the idea, and
becoming unified, hurled her legions against the common European enemy,
who, in his day of sorest need, found not an ally, not so much as one
powerful friend even in that Italy for which he had done and sacrificed so
much.

(M80) It now only remained for young Italy, revolutionized as it was, to
assume and wear its blushing honors. Piedmont having seized Umbria and the
Marches of Ancona, and having also, through her agent Garibaldi, taken
possession of Sicily and Naples, was mistress not only of the greater
portion of the Pontifical States, but also of almost all Italy at the same
time. It became such greatness to have a parliament. Accordingly, the
first Italian parliament assembled at Turin in February, 1861; and on the
14th of March, Victor Emmanuel was proclaimed King of Italy. It was not,
however, till the 24th of June that the French Emperor found it convenient
to recognize this extended sovereignty. In doing so, no doubt, he was
consistent with himself, although quite at variance with the professions
of him who had so lately withdrawn his ambassador from the Court of Turin.

(M81) Count de Cavour lived not to enjoy this recognition. He died on the
6th of June. This minister was a politician to the end; and he had no wish
ever to be anything else. He was anxious, however, at the close, to have
the merit of reconciliation with the church which he had so cruelly
persecuted, both in the ancient State of Sardinia and in the newly-annexed
territories of the “Kingdom of Italy.” Finding that his latter end was
approaching, he desired the presence of Friar Giacomo, Rector of the
Madonna degli Angeli. This Friar, with whom, as is related, the Count had
had a previous understanding, faithfully came. M. de Cavour remained alone
with him for half an hour; and when the priest was gone he called Farini,
and said to him: “My niece has had Fra Giacomo to come to me; I must
prepare for the dread passage to eternity; I have made my confession and
received absolution. I wish all to know, and the good people of Turin
particularly, that I die like a good Christian. I am at peace with myself.
I have never wronged any one.” It is a trite saying that the ruling
passion of a man’s life asserts its power at the hour of death; and the
last recorded words of Count de Cavour would seem to show that to the end
he was more bent on politics than prayer. As Friar Giacomo was reciting
solemnly by his bedside the prayers for the departing soul, “Frate!
Frate!” he exclaimed, whilst he pressed the Friar’s hand, “_libera chiesa
in libera stato_!” (a free church in a free state). Admirable, no doubt.
But how was the great idea to be realized, since the church could only be
free when her ministers were dictated to, imprisoned, banished, and
otherwise tormented? And what freedom for the state, unless it were free
to tyrannize over and persecute the church? Judging Cavour and his party
by their acts rather than their fine speeches, such was their idea of _a
free church in a free state_. If it be true that, as men live so they die,
it is not true that Count de Cavour died like a good Christian. None will
be inclined to dispute with him the comfort which he claimed of being at
peace with himself. But they who are aware of the violence, the
spoliation, the rapine, bloodshed, and unspeakable suffering, in all which
he was, at least, an accomplice, if not the direct cause, throughout the
States of the Italian Grand Dukes, the Pontifical territories and the
kingdom of Naples, will not easily acknowledge that he spoke truth when he
said that “he had never wronged anyone.” But let us now be silent. There
is _One_, and only _One_, who judgeth.

(M82) Considering the assistance so recently afforded to Turkey by the
Christian Powers, her Christian subjects were surely entitled to her
protection, But gratitude, it would appear, is not one of the virtues of
Islamism. In June, 1860, the Pachas disarmed and delivered up to their
deadly enemies the Christian Maronites of Lebanon and Damascus. Over a
hundred villages inhabited by these people were completely destroyed.
Neither the aged nor the young that fell into the hands of the enemy were
spared; and, worse than all, seven thousand young women were carried
captive into the desert. In these melancholy circumstances, Napoleon III.
acted honorably and independently. He sent an armed expedition to chastise
the guilty, and that in defiance of all opposition on the part of his
allies, the English, who, from national jealousy, resisted a French
protectorate in the East, and so assumed the disgraceful _role_ of
patronizing hordes of assassins. Incomprehensible conduct! since, a few
years later, the same people were so moved by Turkish atrocities in
Bulgaria that no British government could have dared to raise an arm in
defence of the crumbling Empire of the Sultan. Pius IX. was deeply moved
by the sufferings of his fellow-Christians. In a letter of 29th July, to
the Patriarch of Antioch and the Bishops of his Patriarchate, he expressed
his sorrow and indignation at the fearful crimes that were committed. “It
is particularly afflicting,” said he, as he condemned certain speeches
that were delivered in the British Parliament in favor of the guilty
parties, “that more sympathy is accorded, and even more assistance
extended, in our age to the fomenters of troubles and revolutions than to
their victims.” He commended France, that had remembered in the
circumstances her Catholic traditions, and intimated that he would
encourage with all his power the liberal offerings of the Christians of
the West in support of their brethren of Syria. He himself, although he
was deprived of his accustomed revenue, together with the greater portion
of his states, contrived to bestow considerable assistance.

(M83) A little later in the same year, the Holy Father met with
unlooked-for consolation in the conversion of the Bulgarian nation. On the
20th December, bishops, priests, and a great many lay persons of that
country, abjured the Photian schism, and addressed to Rome a solemn act of
union in the name of the majority of their fellow-countrymen. Pius IX.
replied on the 29th of January, 1861. He was pleased himself to consecrate
in the Sistine chapel their new archbishop, Sokolski. The latter, as he
renewed the profession of faith, which had been already formulated in
writing at Constantinople, said to the Holy Father: “It is your work that,
although dead, we are come to life, and that, being lost, we are found
again.” Pius IX. referred all the glory to God. “Such works,” he said,
“are wholly divine. To Thee praise, benediction, everlasting thanks! O,
Jesus Christ! source of mercy and of all consolation!” The Bulgarians were
unfortunately situated. Jealousies of race prevailed among them, and did
much to shake religious principle. Add to this that the schismatical
Patriarch of Constantinople agreed to grant ecclesiastical autonomy, as it
might be called, to Bulgaria. This was a deadly blow to the noble impulse
which led them towards the centre of Christian unity. At first they were
three millions of Catholics. The number speedily diminished to some tens
of thousands. Archbishop Sokolski suddenly disappeared. It is not known
whether he abandoned his post or was carried away by force. The latter
supposition is, as yet, the more probable. He is thought to have been
recognized, several times, in a Russian monastery, whither he is supposed
to have been taken by surprise, and obliged to remain against his will.
Pius IX., understanding how necessary it was that the new flock should
have a resident pastor, appointed a provisional successor to Sokolski,
with the title of Administrator of the United Bulgarians, and labored
assiduously to found for him churches and schools. Three schismatical
Greek bishops, who had sought protection at Rome from the violent
proceedings of their patriarch, did not persevere any more than the
majority of the Bulgarians. A fourth, however, Melethios, Archbishop of
Drama, happily remained steadfast, together with the Protestant bishop of
Malta, another Protestant bishop, who was an American of the United
States, and several prelates of the Greek schism, Armenians, Chaldeans or
Copts. All these, about this time, placed themselves under the crook of
the Supreme Pastor.

(M84) Shortly before the death of Count de Cavour, the Emperor Napoleon
was pleased to define the new limits of the papal domain. In doing so, he
left the recently alienated provinces to Piedmont, and and confined the
Pontiff to a comparatively small territory around the city of Rome. He
could not have sanctioned more decidedly or more publicly the
unjustifiable spoliation of the Sardinian king. Such a proceeding cannot
but appear inconsistent to such as are aware only of his apparent quarrel
with this monarch, and the withdrawal of his ambassador from Turin. To
those, on the contrary, who have knowledge of, and consider his secret
conference with, the Piedmontese Envoys at Chambery, and the violent
attack on the Papal States, which, notwithstanding the public and official
protest of the French government through their consul at Ancona,
immediately followed, it will appear that Louis Napoleon Bonaparte,
Emperor of the French, was only acting up to his policy and character.
Soon after this new distribution of territory, the “Kingdom of Italy” was
officially recognized by the government of the French Emperor; and this
recognition paved the way for that of the other Powers, by most of whom,
after some time, it was reluctantly given.

(M85) Cavour was dead. But Sardinian ambition died not with him. Baron
Ricasoli, who succeeded him as Prime Minister, encouraged by the support
of France, which was no longer disguised, actually wrote, in the name of
his king, both to the Pope and Cardinal Antonelli, urging them to give up
the sovereignty of Rome. This was done, not, of course, from any ambitious
motive, but with a view to carrying out their great designs, such as the
regeneration of society, and, above all, their conception of a “free
church in a free state.” The minister concludes magniloquently: “It is in
your power, Holy Father, to renew, once more, the face of the earth. You
can raise the Apostolic See to a height unknown for ages. If you wish to
be greater than earthly sovereigns, cast away from you the wretched
kingship which brings you down to their level. Italy will bestow upon you
a firm seat, entire liberty, and new greatness. She reveres in you the
Pontiff; but she will not stop in her progress for the Prince. She intends
to remain Catholic; but she purposes to be a free and independent nation.
If you will only hearken to the prayers of that daughter whom you love so
dearly, you will gain over souls more power than you can lose as a prince,
and from the Vatican, as you lift your hand to bless Rome and the world,
you will behold the nations, restored to their rights, bow down before
you, their defender and protector.” The new minister, less wary than his
predecessor, immediately set about realizing his grand idea. With what
success will soon be seen.

(M86) The Piedmontese conquests had not been made without cost. Enormous
sums had been spent in corrupting the Neapolitan people. Large amounts
were still scattered throughout the annexed provinces, in order to
maintain their loyalty to the new power; and the press was liberally
subsidized, both in Italy and abroad. For such heavy expenditure money
must be had. _Rem! quomodocunque modo rem!_ An expedient which occurs so
readily to revolutions was had recourse to. The properties of the convents
and the treasures of the churches were seized. Members of religious
communities were expelled from their monasteries and reduced to mendicity.
The laws of the church were trampled under foot, together with the rights
of citizens. The Jesuits were banished and cruelly maltreated like so many
felons. Religious corporations were suppressed, the faithful clergy were
thrown into prison, and many dioceses and parishes deprived of their
pastors. Pius IX. deplored these calamities in his Allocution of 30th
November, 1861. In that of 18th March of the same year, he had replied to
those who conjured him to be reconciled with modern civilization: “The
Holy See,” the Pontiff insisted, “is always consistent. It has never
ceased to promote and sustain civilization. History bears witness to this
fact. It shows most eloquently that, in every age, the Popes carried
civilization into barbarous nations, and even to the remotest lands. But
is that true civilization which enslaves the church, makes no account of
treaties, and recognizes not the rights of weaker parties? It is quite
certain that the church can never come to an understanding with such
civilization. What is there in common, says the apostle, between Christ
and Belial? As to making friendship with the usurpers of our provinces,
before they have shown repentance, let no such thing be hoped for. To make
such a proposition to us, is to ask this see, which has always been the
rampart of justice and truth, to sanction the principle that a stolen
object can be possessed in peace by the thief, and that injustice which
succeeds is justified by success. We loudly declare, therefore, before God
and men, that there is no reason why we should be reconciled with any one.
Our only duty, in this connection, is to forgive our enemies, and to pray
for them, in order that they may be converted. This we do in all
sincerity. But when we are asked to do what is unjust, we cannot give our
consent: _Præstare non possumus_.”

A little later, January, 1862, Cardinal Antonelli replied in the name of
Pius IX. to the Marquis de Lavallette, the French Ambassador at Rome,
showing that it was by no means true to say that the Pope was at variance
with Italy. “An Italian himself, and the chief Italian, he suffers when
Italy suffers, and he beholds with pain the severe trials to which the
Italian church is subjected. As to arranging with those who have robbed
us, we never will do any such thing. All transaction on this ground is
impossible. By whatever reservations it might be accompanied, with
whatever ingenuity of language it might be disguised, we could not accept,
without appearing to consecrate the wrong. The Sovereign Pontiff, before
his exaltation, as well as the cardinals before their nomination, bind
themselves by oath to cede no portion of the territory of the church. The
Holy Father, therefore, will not make any concession of this kind. Neither
a Conclave, nor a new Pontiff, nor his successors in any age, would be
entitled to make such concession.”

The revolutionists, however, could help themselves. It would not be
difficult to imagine the people of Italy, a few generations hence, if,
indeed, the kingdom of Italy be destined to last so long, looking back to
their founders with that same kind of pride which animated the great
Romans when they thought of Romulus and Remus, and the band of brigands
who helped them to found the city.

(M87) About this time the French parliamentary chambers began to enjoy, to
a certain extent, liberty of speech. They could now discuss an address to
the sovereign, and give full publicity to their debates. Inquiry could now
be made to some purpose, whether the Italian policy of Napoleon III. was
sanctioned by France, whether that aberration were national which impelled
to the violation of all right and law, in order to unify Italy, and pave
the way, at the same time, for the unification of Germany. The
revolutionary left of the French parliament, as a matter of course,
favored the Emperor’s revolutionary foreign policy. But the liberty of
debate showed that there was a powerful minority opposed to them, and this
minority enjoyed the sanction of the greatest statesmen of the age. In the
Senate, notwithstanding the absence of every member of the Legitimist
party, as well as that of Messrs. de Montalembert and de Fallou, whom a
coalition of the despotism of the day with radicalism had caused to lose
their seats, a tolerable number of the most devoted partisans of the
empire showed a boldness of language, together with well-defined
statesmanlike views, to which the Imperial _regime_ was not accustomed.
Several of the ablest orators concurred in presenting an amendment to the
address to the throne in favor of the Pope’s temporal sovereignty. It was,
of course, opposed by the government, but was supported, nevertheless, by
sixty votes to seventy-nine. In the legislative assembly, notwithstanding
all the ability displayed by the representatives of the government, the
Emperor’s Italian policy could obtain the support of only 161 votes,
whilst it was condemned by the powerful minority of ninety-one. The
radical leaders of the majority now thought the time opportune for
demanding the recall of the French troops from Rome. The government went
dead against it, and invited the deputies to join with it in condemning
the inordinate and persistent ambition of the revolution. This the
assembly did by a solid vote of the whole house to five. Of this precious
quintet, Jules Favre and Emile Olivier, the leaders of the government,
were two.

Such national demonstrations in favor of the sovereignty which he had done
his best to crush were very irritating to the Emperor Napoleon; and
although he endeavored to appear wholly absorbed by his life of Cæsar, he
could not avoid showing by his acts how profoundly he was disturbed by
being thwarted. Everywhere throughout France the Catholics were made to
suffer. The clergy were persecuted as far as the laws of the country would
allow, and the Imperial anger went so far as to wreak its vengeance on the
poor by suppressing that benevolent and non-political institution, the
Association of St. Vincent de Paul. Needless to say that, at the same
time, the Catholic press was held in fetters. There was no relaxation in
its favor till the year 1867, when the law extending the liberty of the
press became available to Catholic as well as all other writers. The
Emperor even sacrificed the best supporters of the Imperial system on
account of their dislike to his anti-Roman policy. Not only from such men
did warnings come, but also from eminent statesmen of former _regimes_,
such as Messrs. Sauzet, de Broglie, Vitet, and even M. Guizot, who was a
Protestant, together with Messrs. Thiers, Cousin and Dufaure, who were
only nominal Catholics. “Madame,” said M. Thiers, one day, to the Empress,
with more truth than _politesse_, “history lays down the law that
_quiconque mange du Pape en creve_.”(6)

So many and such decided manifestations of public opinion were not without
their effects. No less a personage than Garibaldi, relying, as he thought
he could do, on Piedmontese support, now undertook to realize to the full
the revolutionary programme—the Kingdom of Italy, with Rome for its
capital. The King of Piedmont, whilst he publicly disowned the filibuster,
as he had affected to disown him in Sicily, held an army in reserve for
his support. He expected himself to be officially condemned, whilst in
reality, as usual, privately sustained.

(M88) In the meantime, however, the policy of his Imperial patron was
considerably modified; and orders were despatched to his Sardinian
Majesty, which he could neither take as a blind nor dare to disregard. So
the Piedmontese army, which was intended to aid the filibusters in the
sack of Rome, was obliged to fight them. It came up with the bands of
Garibaldi, at a place called Aspromonte, on the 29th of August, 1862. The
irregular force was defeated, its leader wounded in the heel and taken
prisoner. Garibaldi being so renowned a warrior—Achilles was nothing to
him—was immediately released. Napoleon had spoken sincerely at last. If he
had always done so there would have been less disorder, less violation of
all right and less bloodshed, in bringing together the provinces and
states of Italy. If it had been his policy to concur with the Pope and the
party of true reform, instead of patronizing a filibustering prince, he
might have lived to see a less objectionable and more lasting unification
of Italy than that which he so powerfully aided in achieving.

The intriguing Cabinet of Turin took great credit to itself for having so
vigorously acted, although against its will, in preventing Garibaldi from
seizing Rome. As a reward for this signal service, it boldly proposed to
go there itself. But the time had not yet come. The fall of Rome was
destined to occur simultaneously with another event, in which the Emperor
Napoleon was directly and personally interested. To do him justice, he was
from this time anxious that matters should be settled advantageously to
the Holy See, but without prejudice to the revolution. The idea was
chimerical. But that is no reason for supposing that it was not sincerely
entertained.

(M89) The venerable Pontiff derived some comfort from the resolve of the
French nation, in which all parties, as has been seen, concurred, and the
determination of its Imperial head to check the career of revolution, and
leave Rome to its legitimate sovereign. But meanwhile more abundant
consolations in the spiritual order were showered upon him. In the course
of the great struggle in which there was now, at length, a pause, he was
practically abandoned, even by the most friendly nations. It now fell to
his lot to fulfil a high duty incident to the Pontifical office, and the
nations, through their numerous representatives, flocked around him. No
earthly prince was ever so sustained by the sympathies of mankind. The
time had now arrived, all research and investigation having come to a
close, when those heroes of the Christian faith who, in the year 1597, had
suffered martyrdom at the hands of the Japanese, should be solemnly
canonized. They were twenty-six in number. One of these was an American,
and suffered at Nagasaki in the year just mentioned. Another process of
canonization had also been concluded—that of the blessed Michael de
Sanctis, a Trinitarian, and member of the order for the Redemption of
Captives. Pius IX. had invited the bishops to attend the important
ceremony. The Sardinian government, which took credit to itself for having
established a “free church in a free state,” forbade the Italian bishops
to visit Rome on this occasion. No fewer than ninety bishops protested
against this mockery of liberty, and declared that nothing but the strong
hand of power could have prevented them from repairing to the holy city.

Notwithstanding the forced absence of so many bishops, there were at Rome
three hundred and twenty-three cardinals, patriarchs, archbishops and
bishops, more than four thousand priests, and one hundred thousand
strangers of various nations and classes. Humble curates of the Alpine
regions, who were too poor to undertake the journey, subscribed in order
to send a few of their number in the name of the rest. Numerous ships
which were, for the time, as floating convents, sailed from the ports of
France, Spain and Italy, invoking Mary the Star of the Sea—_Ave Maris
Stella_—whilst masses of people responded from the shore; the hearts of
all were with them. There was high festival at Rome from Ascension Day to
Whitsuntide. All thoughts of politics were dismissed; the grand religious
celebration absorbing all attention. As often as Pius IX. appeared in
public, he was honored with an ovation. On one occasion, in particular,
there was a great demonstration by the clergy and the artillerymen of the
French army, on the day before Pentecost Sunday. The Bishop of Tulle, Mgr.
Berteaud, Mgr. Dupanloup of Orleans, and other bishops, addressed immense
crowds, and produced religious emotion in which unbelievers could not help
participating. It is not recorded that Pius IX. had preached in public
since the beginning of his Pontificate. He now, on the 6th of June,
delivered the word of God in the Sistine Chapel, speaking first in Latin
and afterwards in French. His audience consisted of four thousand priests,
as many as could be assembled within the spacious edifice. All were deeply
moved, and only refrained through reverence from giving vent to their
feelings. As soon as the Holy Father had announced the apostolic
benediction, one of the priests happily intoned the liturgical prayer:
“_Oremus pro Pontifice nostro Pio_.” “Let us pray for our Pontiff Pius.”
All present, as if with one voice, responded: “The Lord preserve him and
give him life, and make him blessed upon earth, and deliver him not to the
will of his enemies.” One may have some idea how the Catholic mind was
impressed, from the words of M. Louis Veuillot: “We traversed our beloved
Rome with filial affection. And if the thought occurred to us that there
existed a design to rob us of it, our feeling was one of anger rather than
of fear. We passed from sanctuary to sanctuary, inquiring as to the places
where Pius IX. would appear, in order to pay profoundest reverence to the
Holy Pontiff. ‘No, no,’ exclaimed a bishop, as he came from the presence
of the Holy Father, ‘it is not true, it is not possible! Do not believe
that there are Victor Emmanuels, Garibaldis, Ratazzis! Such a man cannot
have enemies!’ ”

On Pentecost Sunday, June 8th, 1862, it was known that the Basilica of St.
Peter would be open at five o’clock in the morning. All night the
neighboring streets were crowded, and when the gates were thrown open that
greatest of earth’s temples was filled in a few minutes. The Pontifical
troops were on guard inside. The foreign ambassadors, the royal family of
Naples, and other distinguished persons filled the tribunes; and the
French infantry was massed on St. Peter’s place. The church was
appropriately decorated with paintings representing scenes in the lives of
the martyrs and illustrious confessors. The thousands of lights which
shone around added splendor to the scene. At seven o’clock the great
procession began to move. First came a troop of orphans, then appeared the
students of the ecclesiastical seminaries. These were followed by
religious communities and the secular clergy. Bishops came next, and
archbishops, patriarchs and cardinals. Then appeared the Supreme Pastor,
preceded by the banners of the saints that were to be canonized. All
besides was now forgot, as the Holy Father was borne slowly along, seated
on the _sedia gestatoria_, which was carried by twelve attendants in
scarlet cloaks. The Tiara added dignity to the noble figure of the
Pontiff. In his left hand, which was veiled with white silk, embroidered
with gold, he held a lighted wax taper, while his right was left free to
bless the people as he passed along. The correspondent of the London
_Times_, who was a Protestant, says: “Looking over the sea of heads placed
between me and the procession, I observed that all knelt before Pius IX.,
the meek and the good, for it is only justice so to speak of him. The
chanters of the Vatican chanted in angelic tones: _Tu es Petrus_, and
these tones, softened rather than weakened by distance, pervaded the whole
edifice like spirits. At intervals, another group chanted: _Ave Maris
Stella_, and thus the Pope was borne, through the thousands of Christians
who had come from every country on which the sun shines, to the high altar
behind the tomb of the apostles.”

In the midst of so much pomp and glory, Pius IX. was humble and collected,
referring all to Him of whom he was only the representative on earth. At
the same time, his soul overflowed with happiness when he saw that there
was still so much faith in Israel. The Sovereign Pontiff now took his seat
upon the Papal throne, and having received the obedience of the cardinals
and bishops, he was approached by the consistorial advocate, who thrice
petitioned him to permit the names of the glorious martyrs and confessors
to be inscribed on the diptychs of the saints, which the church recognizes
and holds sacred. After the request had been made the third time, the Holy
Father read in a clear and audible voice the decree of canonization. He
then intoned the _Te Deum_, which was chanted by the immense congregation.
The ceremonies concluded with a solemn High Mass, which was celebrated by
the Pope himself, surrounded by the cardinals and bishops. The people
spent the remainder of the day in pious rejoicing. They were gay and
expansive, but calm and brotherly; thus exhibiting, without being
conscious of it, a spectacle unknown to the inhabitants of other capitals.

(M90) The demonstrations which took place at Rome on the following day
were not less important, and perhaps had greater significance, although
not accompanied by so much pomp and ceremony. There was held in the Palace
of the Vatican a semi-public consistory, at which all the bishops who were
at Rome attended. The venerable Pontiff denounced, in his allocution to
the attentive audience, those errors which are too ancient to have even
the merit of originality, but which are the more dangerous that, at the
present time more than ever, they are loudly preached and widely
disseminated. He alluded in particular to that German criticism, which
views our sacred books as nothing better than a system of mythology, and
to that too well-known romance of a French writer, M. Renan, entitled:
“The Life of Jesus.” He condemned materialism, pantheism, naturalism, and
all those more or less degrading systems which deny human liberty,
proclaim a morality independent of the laws of God; which derive from
material force and superior numbers all law and authority: and which in
philosophy make reason their God, the state in politics, and passion in
the daily conduct of life. The Holy Father then thanked the bishops who
were present, regretting the absence of those of Portugal and Italy, the
latter of whom were restrained by the Piedmontese government, and exhorted
them all to continue to combat error, and to turn away the eyes and hands
of the faithful from bad books and bad journals, and to promote, without
ever wearying, the instruction of the clergy and the good education of
youth. He concluded, in a voice which was impeded by his tears, and with
his eyes raised to heaven, by joining with all present in beseeching the
Father of mercies, through the merits of Jesus Christ, His only Son, to
extend a helping hand to Christian and civil society, and to restore peace
to the church.

Cardinal Mattei, dean of the Sacred College, replied in the name of all
the bishops. Three points chiefly, among others, were affirmed in his
declaration. First of all, the supreme doctrinal authority and
infallibility of the Roman Pontiff. “You are in our regard the master of
sound doctrine. You are the centre of unity. You are the foundation of the
church itself, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail. When you
speak, we hear Peter. When you decree, we obey Jesus Christ. We admire you
in the midst of so many trials and tempests, with a serene brow and
unshaken mind, invincibly fulfilling your sacred ministry.” Next, the
temporal sovereignty of the Holy See. “We acknowledge that your temporal
sovereignty is necessary, and that it was established in fulfilment of a
manifest design of Divine Providence. We hesitate not to declare that this
temporal sovereignty is required for the good of the church and the free
government of souls. It was necessary that the Supreme Pontiff should be
neither the subject nor even the guest of any prince. There was required
in the centre of Europe a sacred bond, placed between the three continents
of the ancient world, an august seat, whence arises in turns, for peoples
and for princes, a great and powerful voice, the voice of justice and of
truth, impartial and without preference, free from all arbitrary
influence, and which can neither be repressed by fear nor circumvented by
artifice. How could it have been that at this very moment the prelates of
the church, arriving from all points of the universe, should have come
here in order to represent all peoples, and confer in security on the
gravest interests, if they had found any prince whomsoever ruling in this
land who had suspicions of their princes, or who was suspected by them on
account of his hostility? In such case their duties as citizens might have
conflicted with their duties as bishops.” Finally, the intimate union of
the Catholic world with the Pope. “We condemn the errors which you have
condemned. We reprove the sacrilegious acts, the violations of
ecclesiastical immunity, and the other crimes committed against the chair
of Peter. We give utterance to this protest, which we claim shall be
inserted in the annals of the church, in all sincerity, in the name of our
brethren who are absent, in the name of those who, detained at home by
force, lament and are silent, in the name of those whom the state of their
health or important affairs have prevented from joining us in this place.
To our number we add the clergy and the faithful people who give you proof
of their love and veneration by their assiduous prayers, as well as by the
offering of Peter’s pence. Would to God that all kings and powerful men in
the world understood that the cause of the Pontiff is the cause of all
states. Would to God that they came to an understanding in order to place
in security the sacred cause of the Christian world and of social order.”

Pius IX. made reply: “United as we are, venerable brethren, we cannot
doubt that the God of peace and charity is with us. And if God be with us,
who shall be against us? Praise, honor, glory to God! To you, peace,
salvation and joy! Peace to your minds; salvation to the faithful
committed to your care; joy to you and to them, in order that you may all
rejoice, chaunting a new canticle in the House of God for evermore!”

The address which Cardinal Mattei read bore the signatures of all the
bishops who were in Rome. The bishops of Italy hastened to express their
concurrence, with one exception, Ariano, who had participated in the
revolutionary movement, and who came to an unhappy death within the year.
There came, in due course, numerous adhesions from all parts of the world,
together with countless addresses from the clergy of the second order. The
laity, on their part, received the bishops on their return home with
triumphal honors. They came around them and escorted them to the pulpits
of their cathedrals, in order to hear from their lips all that had taken
place at Rome. The Bishop of Moulins, Mgr. de Droux Breze, admirably
expressed in a few words the impressions of the venerable pilgrims: “Rome
is a city of wonders; but the wonder of Rome is Pius IX.”

The moral result of all these manifestations was incalculable. At a time
when universal suffrage had come into vogue, it was impossible not to see
in all this, from a merely wordly point of view, indirect, indeed, but
strikingly universal suffrage. The vote of the whole Catholic world was
shown, united with that of the Romans, in affirming the rights of the
Catholic world over Rome, whilst appeared, at the same time, the
determination of the Romans to retain their cherished autonomy, and to
remain the capital of the Catholic world. The parliament of Turin was
greatly agitated. There was indescribable confusion, so that discussion
was impossible. They voted, in opposition to the Episcopal and Pontifical
allocutions, an address to Victor Emmanuel, the character of which may be
gathered from the following few words: “Sire, bishops, almost all
strangers in Italy, have proclaimed the strange doctrine that Rome is the
slave of the Catholic world. We reply to them by declaring that we are
resolved, to maintain inviolable the right of the nation and that of the
Italian metropolis, which is, at present, retained by force under a
detested yoke.” It was of a piece with many other assertions of the
revolutionary party that the Romans detested the rule of the Holy Father.
It was particularly audacious to make such an assertion in face of the
enthusiastic demonstrations which had just been made in the city of the
Popes. They had forbidden the presence of the Italian bishops at Rome, and
nevertheless they dared to complain that almost all the bishops who
gathered around the Sovereign Pontiff were strangers in Italy. But what
did this avail them? Did not the Italian bishops decidedly express
complete concurrence with their brethren?

It is still more surprising that the Emperor Napoleon took no warning from
the words of the Turin parliament, and went so far as to conclude an
agreement with them for the preservation to the Pope of the Holy City.

(M91) It is difficult to understand how a people numerically so weak as
the inhabitants of that portion of the once great kingdom of Poland, which
fell to the Russian Empire at the time of the unfortunate partition, could
have undertaken a rebellion against so great a Power as Russia. But
provocation, patriotism, the sense of nationality, together with the
ardent love of liberty, set the laws of prudence at defiance. That
provocation must have been of no ordinary kind which could excite, in
Russian Poland, a third rebellion, which had no better prospect of success
than the two former, which resulted so disastrously for the unhappy Poles.
And, indeed, what could be worse or more calculated to cause insurrection
than the cruelties, crimes and sacrilegious acts which the Russian
government was guilty of throughout Poland in the years 1861 and 1862? The
churches of that ill-fated country were seized and profaned, divine
service interdicted, and the bishops arraigned before courts-martial and
cast into prison. Such atrocities, instead of crushing, only increased the
patriotism of the people. Russian policy, baffled as was to be expected,
in its design of establishing tranquillity by such barbarous proceedings,
had recourse to a rigid conscription intended to have the effect of
forcing all the patriotic youth of the country into the ranks of the
Russian army. This violent recruiting was first attempted at Warsaw, at
dead of night, on the 15th of January, 1863. When the news of this
violence spread throughout the country, all the young men capable of
bearing arms fled to the steppes and forests, and, in eight days, all
Poland was in rebellion for the third time, in order to break the yoke of
the foreigner. A word from the great Powers, or any one of them, would
have restored peace. But they all alike refused to speak this word. The
British, after having encouraged the Poles to resistance in public
speeches, were on the point of intervening in their behalf, when a hint
from M. de Bismark suddenly cooled their zeal, and determined Lord John
Russell to recall by telegraph threatening despatches which were already
on their way to St. Petersburgh. It need scarcely be said that Prussia,
which was an accomplice of Russia in the iniquitous partition, made common
cause with Russia in the work of repression. Austria was at the time
paralyzed, as Italy was threatening Venice. Italy simply expressed to
Prince Gortschakoff, the Russian Chancellor, “its confidence that the
Emperor Alexander would persevere in the reforms so unfortunately
interrupted by the rebellion.” Innocent Italians! They, of course, were
not guilty of causing rebellion, which was now, in their estimation, so
deplorable in Sicily, Naples, the Grand Duchies, &c. Napoleon remained, as
was his wont, undecided. He would neither assist the Poles nor give them
to understand that he would not assist them. A word from him would have
shortened, by eighteen months, a hopeless struggle of two years, which
ended by exhausting them.

There was one, however, who protested. Pius IX. denounced the oppressor as
fearlessly as if he had been the least of the princes of the earth. He
wrote to him, at first, in a tone of mild remonstrance, on the 22d of
April, 1863. But finding that his representations were not heeded, he
renewed them more pressingly. He did not confine himself to merely
official acts. He sent Cardinal Reisach on a confidential mission to
Vienna, and addressed a warm and feeling letter to the Emperor Francis
Joseph, in order to induce him to take action energetically in common with
France. He invited the whole Christian world to join with him in praying
for the suffering nation which he nobly declared to be “the soldier of
civilization and of faith.” Such as were at Rome, at the time of these
prayers, will never forget how enthusiastically the Roman people responded
to the call of Pius IX. In praying for the defenders of a distant country,
they seemed to pray, at the same time, for their own, which was now, more
than ever, threatened. But the time of mercy had not yet come, and
persecution was redoubled. Ecclesiastics were deported or put to death,
simply for not having refused the aid of religion to the dying on the
field of battle. Families and whole populations were doomed to choose
between exile and apostacy. All the bishops, without exception, were
driven from their dioceses, and some of them perished on the way to
Siberia. Pius IX. could no longer contain his grief and indignation. On
the 27th of April, 1864, in replying to the postulators in the cause of
blessed Francis of the five wounds, he said: “The blood of the helpless
and the innocent cries for vengeance to the throne of the Almighty against
those by whom it is shed. Unhappy Poland! It was my desire not to speak
before the approaching consistory. But I fear lest, by being silent any
longer, I should draw down upon myself the punishment denounced by the
prophets against those who tolerate iniquity. No, I would not that I were
forced to cry out, one day, in presence of the Sovereign Judge: ‘Woe to me
because I have held my peace!’ (_Va mihi quia tacui._) I feel inspired at
this moment to condemn a sovereign whose vast Empire reaches to the Pole.
This potentate, who falsely calls himself the Catholic of the East, but
who is only a schismatic cast forth from the bosom of the true church,
persecutes and slays his Catholic subjects, and by his ferocious cruelty
has driven them to insurrection. Under the pretext of suppressing this
insurrection, he extirpates the Catholic religion. He deports whole
populations to inhospitable climes, where they are deprived of all
religious assistance, and replaces them by schismatical adventurers. He
tears the pastors from their flocks, and drives them into exile, or
condemns them to forced labors and other degrading punishments. Happy they
who have been able to escape, and who now wander in strange lands! This
potentate, all heterodox and schismatical as he is, arrogates to himself a
power which the Vicar of Christ possesses not. He pretends to deprive a
bishop whom we have rightfully instituted. Can he be ignorant that a
Catholic bishop is always the same, whether in his see or in the
catacombs, and that his character is ineffaceable? Let it not be said that
in raising our voice against such misdeeds we encourage the European
revolution. We can distinguish between the socialist revolution and the
legitimate rights of a nation struggling for independence and its
religion. In stigmatizing the persecutors of the Catholic religion, we
fulfil a duty laid on us by our conscience. It behooves us to pray, with
renewed earnestness, for that unfortunate country. In consequence, we
impart our apostolic benediction to all who shall, this day, pray for
Poland. Let us all pray for Poland!” It was as if the breath of God’s
anger were on the lips of the Holy Pontiff. Pius IX., remarks M. de St.
Albin, swayed by his deep emotion, had risen from his throne, his voice
was like thunder, and his arm appeared to threaten as if possessed of
omnipotence.

(M92) Such apostolic courage commanded the admiration of the enemies of
the Papacy. The deputy, Brofferio, said in the parliament of Turin, whilst
his colleagues, revolutionists like himself, applauded: “An old man,
exhausted, sickly, without resources, without an army, on the brink of the
grave, curses a potentate who slaughters a people; I feel moved in my
inmost soul; I imagine myself borne back to the days of Gregory VII.; I
reverence and applaud.”

(M93) M. Meyendorf, the _charge d’affaires_ of Russia, having been
admitted to a private audience on occasion of the Christmas festivities of
1866, Pius IX. naturally directed the conversation to the painful state of
ecclesiastical affairs in Poland. The Russian minister denied everything,
even the most notorious facts, and ended by casting all the blame on the
Catholics, who, he affirmed, had openly transacted with the Polish
insurrection, whilst the Protestants generally sided with the government.
“Nor was this astonishing,” he added, “considering that Catholicism and
revolution are the same thing.” Pius IX. could not tolerate this false
assertion, which was so absurd that it could have no other object than to
insult him and the whole body of the faithful of whom he was the Chief.
“Depart,” said he to the minister, as he dismissed him, “I cannot but
believe that your Emperor is ignorant of the greater part of the injustice
under which Poland suffers. I, therefore, honor and esteem your Emperor;
but I cannot say as much of his representative who comes to insult me in
my own house.” Pius IX. vainly hoped that the Envoy would be disowned, and
diplomatic relations between Rome and St. Petersburgh continued. When
Alexander II. suppressed, by his own authority, in 1867, the Catholic
diocese of Kaminieck, Pius IX. was obliged to have recourse to the
newspaper press, in order to make known to the Catholics of that
unfortunate country that he appointed the Bishop of Zitomir provisional
administrator. “I have no other means of communicating with them,” said he
“I act like the captain of a vessel who encloses in a bottle his last
words to his family, and confides them to the storm, hoping that the waves
will deposit them on some shore where they will be gathered up.”

(M94) Pius IX. showed himself as generous to princes as to peoples, acting
always as the champion of justice in the cause of the former, as well as
in supporting the undoubted rights of the latter. Francis II., of Naples,
dethroned by his ambitious cousin, King Victor Emmanuel, was, as the
Bonapartes had once been, an exile at Rome, and enjoyed the same princely
hospitality which his predecessor, in 1848, had extended to the Holy
Father in the Kingdom of Naples. Victor Emmanuel remonstrated against this
kindness to a fallen enemy. But in vain! He was powerless. His ally and
patron, however, the French Emperor, was not so easily resisted. This
potentate gave it to be understood, although not in express terms, that
the stay of the French troops at Rome was dependent on the departure of
the exiled monarch. The Pope, alluding to the family of Napoleon I., whom
Pius VII. had kindly received at Rome, replied, satirically, that the
Roman Pontiffs had traditions of hospitality, as regarded their
persecutors, and much more in favor of their benefactors. Napoleon was
ashamed to persist; and Francis II. remained at Rome as long as Pius IX.
was master there.

(M95) It was quite natural that Napoleon III. should entertain the idea
that he was born to found empires. He had succeeded in establishing one on
the ruins of a republic in the Old World. He now sought to build up
Imperial power side by side with a republic in the New. Mexico was
designed to be the seat of this empire; and, as that country greatly
needed government of some kind, the time was deemed opportune for carrying
into effect Napoleon’s idea. The Imperial dignity was offered to the
Archduke Maximilian of Austria; and this prince, relying on the support of
France, consented to ascend the throne of the Montezumas. Before crossing
the seas, Prince Maximilian came, together with his wife, the Princess
Charlotte of Belgium, to Rome, in order to beg the prayers, the wise
counsel and the apostolic benediction of the venerable Pontiff. So desired
the new Emperor to inaugurate a reign which, it was hoped, would be great
and prosperous. The Holy Father, at the solemn moment of communion, spoke
to the Prince of Him by whom kings reign and the framers of laws decree
just things. In the name of this King of kings, he recommended to him the
Catholic nation of Mexico, reminding him, at the same time, that he was,
under God, the constituted protector of the rights of the people as well
as those of the church. The Emperor and his youthful spouse were moved to
tears; and Maximilian, on leaving Rome, declared that he departed under
the protection of God, and with the benediction of the Holy Pontiff. “I am
confident, therefore,” he added, “that I shall be able to fulfil my great
mission to Mexico.”

Unfortunately for him, however, liberalism, or, rather, ill-disguised
socialism, was enthroned, for the moment, in what was destined to be, for
a little while longer, the chief seat of European Power. It is not
difficult to imagine whence counsel proceeded, and the inexperienced
Emperor came to believe that Mexico might be governed as France was,
whilst its ruler thwarted the will of the great majority of her people. He
may not, indeed, have been free to reject the advice which swayed him. Be
this as it may, he most unwisely cast himself into the arms of the party
to whom monarchy and religion were alike hateful. He now framed a
Concordat which, whilst it could not be acceptable to his new friends, was
far from being such as the Pope could ratify. The revolutionary party had
gained the new Emperor.

(M96) The Holy Father, ever anxious to promote the well-being of the
church, sent a nuncio to Maximilian, in order to remind him of his
promises, and induce him to abolish the laws that had been enacted for the
purpose of oppressing the church, and completely to reorganize
ecclesiastical affairs with the full concurrence of the Holy See. The
letter borne by the nuncio required that the Catholic religion should
continue to be the stay and glory of the Mexican nation; that the bishops
should be entirely free in the exercise of their pastoral ministry; that
the religious orders should be restored and organized according to the
instructions and faculties imparted by the Sovereign Pontiff; that the
patrimony of the church and the rights connected therewith should be
guaranteed and protected; that none be allowed to disseminate false and
subversive doctrines; that public as well as private education be directed
and superintended by ecclesiastical authority; and, finally, that those
fetters be broken which had hitherto for some time held the church
dependent on the arbitrary will of the civil power. “If,” continued the
Holy Father, “the religious edifice be re-established, as we doubt not it
will, on such foundations, your Majesty will satisfy one of the greatest
wants and realize the most ardent aspirations of the religious people of
Mexico; you will dispel our disquietude and that of the illustrious
Mexican Episcopate; you will pave the way for the education of a learned
and zealous clergy, as well as the moral reformation of the people. You
will thus, also, consolidate your throne, and promote the prosperity and
glory of your Imperial family.” In all this the Emperor would have been
sustained by the great majority of the Mexican people. And there was
nothing impossible required of him. It is not shown anywhere that the
restoration of church properties, which had been long alienated and had
often changed proprietors, would have been exacted, any more than in
England, when religion was restored under the reign of Mary. The policy
indicated by Pius IX. would have won for Maximilian a host of friends and
supporters. The line of conduct which he pursued was most unacceptable to
the Catholic nation of Mexico, whilst it was not in the least calculated
to satisfy the revolutionary party. Refusing to concede everything that
the church required, he wished to retain for himself the ancient regal
privileges of the Crown of Spain—the investiture of bishops, the
regulating of ecclesiastical tariffs, the limitation of the number of
monastic orders and religious associations, &c. So far the revolution was
pleased. It was loud in its applause. With what sincerity events failed
not to show. Pius IX. insisted on the Emperor’s solemn pledges so recently
given at Rome. Maximilian was deaf to the counsels, the complaints, the
earnest prayers of the Holy Father. So it remained only for the Papal
Nuncio, Monsignor Meglia, to take his departure from Vera Cruz (1st June,
1865). Meanwhile, Maximilian’s chief support, the French Emperor, dreading
the formidable hostility of the United States of America, which could not
tolerate an empire on the borders of their great republic, was obliged to
withdraw from Mexico the army which, from the first, was necessary to
sustain the new empire. Napoleon, one would say, was pledged to
Maximilian, having induced him to assume the Imperial Crown, and having
also promised all necessary support. He could not, however, command
success; and chivalry, even if it had still existed, would have availed
but little, when power alone could win.

Maximilian was now all alone, face to face with anarchy and the Mexican
nation which he had slighted. Faction ruled in his place. The
revolutionary party which he had favored proved untrue; and falling into
the hands of his enemies, he was solemnly murdered by the ruling brigand
of the day. The officers of Napoleon’s army sincerely believed that no
better fate could be anticipated; for they earnestly advised him to
accompany them on their return to Europe. This he could have done without
dishonor. The idea of a Mexican empire was Napoleon’s, and he alone was
answerable for its success. On the part of Maximilian it was more than
chivalry to remain in Mexico when his guard was gone. But the idea of the
youthful Prince in regard to honor appears to have been, like his policy,
unsound. The policy may not have been, most probably was not, his. But the
sentiment of honor was all his own. And although, in an age of chivalry
even, it would have appeared exaggerated, it redounds to his credit. It is
not surprising that a man animated by such noble sentiments should have
died as became a hero and a Christian.

(M97) The potentate, on whom, as far as worldly power was concerned,
depended the Pope’s temporal sovereignty, was throwing himself every day
more and more into the hands of the enemies of the church. His ministers,
more audacious than himself, carried their blind hatred of “Clericalism”
to such an extent as to sacrifice many of the best supporters of the
empire. This was singularly apparent at the general election of 1863. M.
de Persigny hesitated not to employ all the influence of the government
against such Imperialists as had voted for or shown themselves favorable
to the Pope’s temporal power. He succeeded in causing such friends of
Napoleon as De Caverville, Cochin and Lemercier to be replaced by the most
bitter enemies of the Imperial _regime_. He also managed to exclude from
parliament Messrs. de Montalembert, de Falloux and Keller. But Messrs.
Plichou, Berryer and Thiers, notwithstanding his hostile efforts, were
elected. This last-named statesman was himself a host, and his eloquent
speeches in support of the temporal sovereignty made all the more
impression that they were known to be dictated by far-seeing policy,
rather than any leaning towards religion. They deeply impressed the
parliament and the country; but availed not with Napoleon III., whom an
unprincipled ministry were leading blindfolded to destruction. Meanwhile,
the question of Rome entered on a new phase. The Cabinets of Turin and
Paris concluded an agreement in regard to the Roman State on 15th
September, 1864. The text of this notorious agreement was known to Europe,
whilst its meaning remained a mystery. The ministry of Napoleon III. made
it appear in France as a guarantee for the safety of the Pope. The
Piedmontese government flattered the revolutionary element of Italy, by
representing that it did not in the least change their programme, the
keynote of which was “Rome the Capital.” They were right. This proved to
be the true solution of the mystery. The first article provided that the
King of Piedmont should not attack, and he bound himself by oath not to
attack, the remaining territory of the Holy Father, to prevent by force,
if necessary, all aggression from any other quarter, and to pay the debts
of the former States of the Church. By the second clause France became
bound to withdraw her troops in two years. A protocol was added, by which
Victor Emmanuel engaged to transfer his capital from Turin to Florence in
six months. It was more than disrespectful to the Pope; it was of evil
omen, of sinister import, that the sovereign whose state was concerned was
not a party to the treaty—was not even consulted. The minds of all
Catholics were greatly disquieted, and their anxiety was only increased by
the Italian interpretation of the agreement. Pius IX., who understood well
by what men and by what principles the Cabinet of the Tuileries was
governed, made a remark which indicated more his fears for the great
French nation than for the fragment which remained to him of his
territory. He would have nothing to do with the pecuniary compensation
that was offered to him. He could only say that “he pitied France.” The
crime of that country was that her government made any agreement at all
with the monarch who had so unscrupulously violated the treaty of Zurich,
and who was, besides, the chief hero of Gaeta, Naples, Castelfidardo and
Ancona. One of the most eloquent of Bishop Dupanloup’s publications, the
one which, perhaps, has been the most generally read, exposes the
hollowness of this arrangement, which is known in history as the September
agreement.

(M98) The 8th of December, 1864, the tenth anniversary of the proclamation
of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, was marked by the publication
of the Encyclical, “quanta cura,” and, together with it, the “Syllabus.”
This great doctrinal act was a crushing reply to the erroneous assertions
of the time, as well as to the vain ideas of those politicians who boasted
that, through their efforts, the spiritual office no less than the
temporal sovereignty of the Pope was drawing to a close. The Encyclical
letter is addressed to all bishops in communion with the Holy See, and
through them to all the faithful throughout the world. It contains the
teachings of Pius IX., and the Popes, his predecessors, in opposition to
the errors of the present age—the mistaken ideas of natural religion;
religious indifference which, falsely assuming the name of liberty of
conscience and of worship, establishes the reign of physical force in the
place of law and justice; communism and socialism; the subjection of the
church to the state; and the independence of Christians in regard to the
Holy See.

The “Syllabus” consists of eighty propositions, which are a summary of the
false teachings of the enemies of the Catholic church, as found in the
periodical press, as well as in their writings of a more permanent
character. The first seven propositions briefly express the errors on
pantheism, naturalism, and absolute rationalism. All who have any
Christian belief, to whatever denomination they may adhere, must surely
acknowledge the justice of denouncing philosophers of the school of
Strauss, who insist that Christ is a myth, and His religion a system of
mythology.

From the eighth to the fourteenth proposition inclusively, are pointed out
and condemned the errors of modern rationalism. From the fourteenth to the
eighteenth, indifferentism and latitudinarianism are exposed. Throughout
the rest of the catalogue, secret societies and communism are condemned;
erroneous views, as regards church and state, natural and Christian
ethics, and Christian marriage are expressed and denounced. Finally, are
pointed out the errors that have been uttered in regard to the temporal
power of the Pope, together with such as have reference to modern
liberalism.

These important documents, the Encyclical, “quanta cura,” and the
“Syllabus,” are not so much the work of Pius IX. as of all the Popes of a
century back, from the Council of Pistoia, Febronianism and Josephism.
Whilst the “Syllabus” was yet in embryo, it was, with the exception of a
few propositions which were not yet formulated, confidentially
communicated to the bishops on occasion of the canonization of the
Japanese martyrs. Each bishop was at that time invited to select two
theologians in order to examine the propositions, and give their opinion
in six months. The church, therefore, was not taken by surprise, when the
“Syllabus” appeared, however much its publication may have struck with
astonishment and alarm the party of revolution and unbelief. Catholics, at
least, could not fail to be swayed by such a masterly exposition of
Catholic theology on so many subjects, all intimately connected with human
conduct in private life as well as in affairs of public import. And there
were Catholics everywhere—among the rulers of the world and its leading
statesmen, no less than in all classes and grades of society. Such now
could have no excuse for favoring opinions which were so distinctly
condemned by that authority which they all recognized as the highest upon
earth. Nevertheless, whatever impression the clear teaching of the
“Syllabus,” in regard to the church and her rights, civil society, and
both natural and Christian morality, was destined, in time, to produce,
but little disposition was shown to be guided by it at the outset. There
was all but a universal clamor that the church had pronounced a divorce
between modern society and the spiritual order. Nor could it be otherwise,
so long as the former held principles which were essentially incompatible
with the latter. Neither could reconciliation be easily or speedily
brought about. The principles which religion condemned were in the
ascendant. The existing civil law of all European nations was founded on
them. There was no government that had not adopted them and shown itself
inclined to be entirely guided by them. The formal condemnation of the
cherished ideas of the age was as a thunderbolt hurled against the social
elements of the day. But why disturb their peace? They had no peace. They
were already discordant. “_Non esi pax impiis_.” Peace could not be born
of unbelief. It could come only through the truth, even as health conquers
disease by the most trying curative process. Napoleon III. was the first
who openly resisted the “encroachments” of Rome, just as if they had
constituted the only danger to his throne. By a decree dated 1st January,
1865, he forbade the publication of the Encyclical and the Syllabus,
whilst he caused to be tried and condemned, as guilty of abuse, the
Archbishop of Besançon and the Bishop of Moulins, because they had read
the Encyclical in their pulpits. The other prelates of France so far
submitted as to avoid printing the obnoxious documents, lest their
printers should be uselessly compromised. Several bishops declared that
the Encyclical was already sufficiently published in their dioceses by the
voice of the press. They thus expressed the idea of the whole episcopate.
Pius IX. highly commended their zeal. “We must go back,” he said, “to the
early ages of Christianity, in order to find an episcopal body that could
show such courage.”

To persons accustomed to theological studies, it is sufficiently apparent
why each proposition of the “Syllabus” stands condemned. To others, cause
is shown in the consistorial allocutions, Encyclical and other letters
apostolical of the Holy Father, in relation to each proposition. Some
things must be interpreted by the conduct of the Pope himself. For
instance, what is said in regard to the liberty of public worship and of
the press must be read in the light of that reasonable tolerance which the
Popes were accustomed to exercise when they ruled at Rome as sovereign
Princes. There is no liberty without some restraint. The press, in this
respect, is in the same position as individuals. According to the laws of
all civilized lands, when it abuses its liberty and commits crime, it is
visited with severe punishment. The greater liberty which the press
enjoys, and must enjoy, in the present circumstances of the world, by no
means clashes with the condemnation of proposition 79 of the “Syllabus.”
The press can no more be free to publish anything whatsoever, however
offensive it may be, than persons are free to perform such acts as
necessarily subject them, even in states where there is the greatest
attainable degree of liberty, to condemnation and punishment. If every
organized community possesses, as it certainly does possess, the right so
to stigmatize an offending citizen, and that without any violation of
liberty, it is equally entitled to judge and punish an offending press.

(M99) Not satisfied with the blow which so greatly weakened Austria in the
Italian campaign, Napoleon III. plotted with Prussia for a further
humbling of the great Catholic Power. To this end he held dark
consultations with Count Bismark, at Biarritz, as he had formerly done
with Count de Cavour at Plombieres. The former, however, proved to be more
than a match for him. Hence the great victory of Sadowa which paved the
way for Sedan. Prussia, without a rival in Germany, could freely pursue
her ambitious schemes. Napoleon, apparently suspecting nothing, left the
Rhine frontier comparatively unprotected; and Prussia, victorious in the
struggle with Austria, refused to France all compensation for her
complicity and encouragement. This hindered not Napoleon from taking part
in the treaty of Prague, as president, and sanctioning by his signature
the expulsion of Austria from Germany, and the confiscation of Hanover,
Nassau, the two Hesses and other small independent sovereignties, in the
interest of Prussia. This Power, besides, assumed the military direction
of Southern Germany, and so was, literally, doubled in extent and
population. Thus was swept away in the course of seven years, through the
agency of Napoleon III., the barrier of small states which the wisdom of
ages had placed along the continental frontier of France, from the
Mediterranean to the ocean, and which moderated the shocks of the greater
Powers. France, accordingly, by her own act, was confined between unified
Italy on the one hand, and on the other, the formidable German Empire.

In exchange for combinations which proved so disastrous, Venice was ceded
to Napoleon, and immediately made over by him to Italy. Defeated both by
sea and land in his struggle with Austria, Victor Emmanuel, nevertheless,
accepted the present, as if it had come to him by conquest, and Italy was
free to the Adriatic, and the celebrated Milan programme of 1859
completely carried out. This result, whilst it flattered the vanity of
Napoleon III., crowned the wishes of the secret societies. Protestants,
Jews, Freemasons, and people of all shades of unbelief, deputies of the
French left, and the revolutionary journals, all zealous in the service of
Prussia, enthusiastically applauded. The French Emperor’s ministers, even,
M. Rouher, in the Legislative Chamber, and M. de Lavalette, in a
diplomatic circular, were not ashamed to congratulate themselves publicly
on the stipulations of the treaty of Prague. In their mania for Italian
unity, these wise statesmen became blind to the interests of their own
country—condign punishment, surely, of their disloyal and unprincipled
policy.

(M100) Whilst the political world was extraordinarily agitated, and a
great potentate was endeavoring to destroy the last remnant of Papal
sovereignty, and was himself at the same time, hastening blindly but
surely to ignominy and ruin, the Pontiff against whom he warred calmly and
successfully continued to accomplish the sublime work of his spiritual
mission.

(M101) Nothing tends more to the instruction and edification of the
Catholic people than the canonization of saints and martyrs. But for the
care which the church bestows in bringing to light the acts and sufferings
of those heroes of the Christian faith, many of them, remaining unknown,
would be lost as examples to the rest of mankind. It is also due to the
saints themselves that the church should honor them, although, indeed,
earthly celebrity and true fame which lasts throughout all time is as
nothing compared to the glory which they enjoy. John Baptist de Rossi (de
Rubæs) was a canon of the Collegiate Basilica of Saint Mary, _in
cosmedin_. The venerable John Baptist de Rossi was in every respect a
worthy minister of God. He labored last century at Rome, in the vineyard
of the Lord, with so much, patience, longanimity and meekness, and was so
filled with the Holy Ghost and sincere charity, that he spent his whole
life in evangelizing the poor, to the great gain of souls. He instructed
others unto righteousness, and God willed that he should shine for
evermore as a star in the firmament. And not only was he crowned with
light in heaven, in order that, transformed to the Divine image, he should
appear in God’s presence environed with heavenly splendor; but God,
through His unspeakable bounty, appointed that His servant, enriched by an
abundant harvest of merits, illustrated by triumphal honors, and glorified
by miracles, should also enjoy upon earth a name glorious in the
estimation of mankind, and should thus be a new ornament to the church
militant. The process of canonization was commenced in the time of Gregory
XVI., and completed by Pius IX., when in March, 1859, the name of John
Baptist de Rossi was inscribed on the sacred diptychs.

(M102) John Sarcander was born at Skoczovia, in Upper Silesia, in the year
1577. He obeyed the call of God and joined the ranks of the priesthood.
When ordained priest, he showed himself in every way a pattern of
excellence—by his good works, his science, the integrity and gravity of
his character. He was appointed, accordingly, to the charge and guidance
of souls. He fulfilled so well all the duties of a good pastor that the
four parishes to which he was successively called by episcopal authority
received him as an angel sent to them from heaven, and bore witness by
their tears to their regret when they were deprived of his presence.
Meanwhile, the ministers of the sect of Pikardites were driven from the
parish of Holleschow, where the scourge of heresy, like the wild boar of
the forests, had spread devastation during eight years. John Sarcander was
selected in order to repair the incalculable evil that had been done to
that unfortunate vineyard. He shrunk not from the struggle which it
behooved him to maintain in the cause of the true faith. He was in every
sense an example to his flock. He exhorted, beseeched, reprimanded with
patience and wisdom, neglecting nothing that was calculated to strengthen
whatever was weak and heal what was sick, to reunite those who were
separated, to raise up the fallen and seek such as were astray. Such
exemplary conduct only excited the extreme hatred of the heretical party,
and he was obliged to leave Holleschow and retire to Poland. But moved by
the dangers to which were exposed the people whom he loved so dearly in
Christ, he returned to his parish, after having venerated the Holy Virgin
at her shrine of Crenstochow, in fulfilment of a vow which he had made.
Soon after his return the heretics cast him into prison as a traitor to
his country, but, in reality, on account of his zeal in preaching the
Catholic faith. He was subjected to vigorous interrogatories, and in order
to induce him to reveal what the supreme head of the administration in
Moravia had confided to him in confession, he was made to undergo the most
exquisite torture. Preferring a glorious death to a miserable life, he
combated to his last breath for the work of Christ, and gave up his soul
to God, leaving to all the people the remembrance of his death as an
example of fortitude and courage. Fearfully tortured on the rack for three
hours, burned slowly in almost every part of his body, by torches and
bundles of feathers steeped in rosin, oil, pitch and sulphur, he was
carried back almost lifeless to his prison. There he lingered a whole
month, suffering more than the pain of death, whilst his mind and heart
were so fixed on God that he ceased not to sing His praises as long as
life remained. He fell asleep in the Lord, the sixteenth of the calends of
April, 1620. It was not appointed that such heroic suffering should be
doomed to oblivion. Public report, the witness of contemporary writers,
the monuments of the time, and the splendor of miracles caused them to be
so celebrated that, notwithstanding the wars, losses and other impediments
which had prevented the Archbishops of Olmutz from considering this grand
and beautiful cause, and reporting it to the Holy See sooner than the 18th
century, the sanctity and martyrdom of the venerable John Sarcander were
not only known to the populations of Moravia and the neighboring
countries, but were also remembered with the most profound veneration.
From 1754 till the time of Pius IX., this celebrated cause was before the
church, and subjected to the usual searching investigation. Finally, in
February, 1859, it was concluded, and the blessed John Sarcander
recognized, as a saint and martyr, by the universal church.

(M103) This same year, 1859, was canonized the venerable servant of God,
Benedict Joseph Labre, of the diocese of Boulogne. Voluntary poverty was
the lot in life of this saint of modern times. Worldly wisdom condemns as
folly, the choice of this devoted Christian who preferred to all earthly
advantages the most abject poverty. God is, indeed, wonderful in His
saints; and as He often chooses what is folly in the estimation of the
world, in order to confound what it holds to be wise, so He appointed that
the humble Labre who, for the love of Christ, led a life of poverty, and
taught mankind the excellence of self-denial in an unbelieving and selfish
age, should be exalted, even upon earth, and ranked among the princes of
God’s people. In June, 1842, Gregory XVI. declared, by a solemn decree,
that Benedict Joseph Labre had practised, in a heroic degree, all the
Christian virtues. The necessary investigations and formalities were
continued, and in September, 1859, Pius IX. ordained that apostolic
letters should be issued, ordering the celebration of the solemn rite of
his beatification in the Patriarchal Basilica of the Vatican.

(M104) The year 1859 was also marked by the solicitude of Pius IX. for the
Church of Ireland. In a letter to the archbishops and bishops of that
country, he commends their zeal in promoting Catholic education, and
concurs with them in pointing out the dangers of mixed schools. In the
same letter the Holy Father earnestly entreats the venerable pastors of
the Irish Church to pray that the designs of the wicked may not succeed,
that it would please God to bring to naught the machinations of those
misguided men who, by their false teachings, endeavor to corrupt the
people everywhere, and to overthrow, if that were possible, the Catholic
religion. At the same time, it was appointed that the feast of Saint
Patrick, the Patron Saint of Ireland, should be celebrated according to a
higher rite.

(M105) The anti-President Juarez had succeeded in establishing himself at
Vera Cruz, whilst Miramon was recognized by Mexico, after General Zuloago,
as the successor of Santa Anna. Juarez was a revolutionist and persecutor
of the church; Miramon, a conservative and friend of religion. As proof of
the tyranny of the former, may be cited a decree which he published in
July of this year (1859). This decree, which aimed at nothing less than
the destruction of religion, and was, at the same time, a cruel outrage on
the Catholic nation of Mexico, accounts for the earnestness and
determination with which Pius IX., a little later, as has already been
shown, insisted that the Emperor Maximilian should adopt a policy friendly
to the church, and in harmony with the wishes of the great majority of the
Mexican people. Such policy, if only followed in time, would have so
strengthened the hands of Maximilian that, in all probability, he would
have been able to hold his ground when most unchivalrously abandoned by
his faint-hearted ally. No doubt the anti-president claimed that he was a
reformer of the church. And surely, indeed, he was, if it was reform to
suppress all religious societies whatsoever, to rob the clergy of their
property, and that so completely as to reduce them to mendicancy. But let
the decree speak for itself:

Art. 1. All property administered under divers titles, by the regular or
secular clergy, whether real or personal, whatever its name or object, is
henceforth the property of the nation.

Art. 3. There shall be complete independence between affairs of state and
such as are purely ecclesiastical. The government will confine itself to
protecting the public worship of the Catholic religion the same as any
other religion.

Art. 4. The ministers of religion can accept such offerings as may be made
on account of the administration of the sacraments and the other duties of
their office. They may also, by an agreement with those who employ them,
stipulate for remuneration for their services. But in no case can these
offerings or this remuneration be converted into permanent property.

Art. 5. All religious orders, whatever their name or their object, are
suppressed throughout the whole republic, as well as confraternities or
associations connected with a religious community or any church
whatsoever.

The 6th article, whilst it prohibits the erection of new convents and new
confraternities, forbids also the use of the religious habit.

THE EIGHTEENTH CENTENARY OF THE MARTYRDOM OF SS. PETER AND PAUL.

A new joy awaited the Holy Father. The year 1867 will be ever memorable in
sacred annals, as the year of the great centennial celebration of the
glorious martrydom of SS. Peter and Paul. “Peter went to Rome,” St. Jerome
writes, “in the second year of the Emperor Claudius, and occupied there
the priestly chair for twenty-five years.” On the same venerable authority
it is known that Peter suffered two years after the death of the great
Roman philosopher, Seneca, who was executed by order of Nero in the
sixty-fifth year of the Christian era. In the same work (_de viris
illustribus_), St. Jerome says that SS. Peter and Paul were put to death
in the fourteenth year of Nero’s reign, which corresponds with the
sixty-seventh year of our era, when reckoned from the first of January,
and not from the 13th October, the date of Nero’s accession.

The French troops had scarcely been withdrawn from Rome in fulfilment of
the September agreement, when Pius IX. invited all the clergy and people
of the Catholic world to visit the city in order to participate in the
celebration of the centenary, and witness the canonization of several holy
persons long since deceased. Their names were Josaphat, the martyr
Archbishop of Solotsk; Pedro de Arbues, an Augustinian friar; the martyrs
of Gorcum; Paul of the Cross, founder of the Passionists; Leonardo di
Porto Maurizio; Maria Francesca, a Neapolitan of the third order of St.
Peter of Alcantara, and Germaine Cousin, of the diocese of Toulouse.
Shortly before, in the preceding December, the Holy Father enjoyed the
great happiness of celebrating, with even more than ordinary solemnity,
the beatification of the Franciscan Monk, Benedict of Urbino, who died in
odor of sanctity, at Fossombrone, in 1625, within a few miles of
Sinigaglia, the birthplace of the Pope, leaving the whole country
bordering on the Adriatic and the province of Umbria in a manner embalmed
by a life of sanctity and extraordinary self-denial. Pius IX., from early
youth, was familiar with the history of this saint, whose noble birth and
distinguished abilities opened to him the way to worldly fame and
prosperity, but who, nevertheless, chose the cross, becoming a Capuchin,
and having no other ambition in the seclusion of the cloister than to be a
worthy disciple of his crucified Saviour.

It was by no means to indulge his own pious feelings, or to gratify the
clergy and Catholic people, that the venerable Pontiff invited so many
from Italy and all parts of the Christian world to take part with him in
celebrating these canonizations, and, at the same time, the eighteen
hundredth anniversary of the martyrdom of the blessed Apostles, the
founders of the Church. His object was to edify, to place in contrast
with, and in opposition to, the worldly and unbelieving spirit of the time
the teachings and the solemn offices of religion, together with the power
of holiness, so admirably shown forth in the lives and glory of the
saints. The revolution aimed at nothing less than the destruction of
everything spiritual. It was good for it to be taught that true
spirituality is beyond its reach.

It would hardly be fair to contrast as purely worldly the grand exposition
at Paris, the World’s Fair, with the religious celebrations at Rome. The
rich and varied display of the objects of art and industry, in the
beautiful capital of France, was the result of an advanced Christian
civilization. It was recognized as such by the greatest statesmen, the
ablest men of science, and the wisest rulers of the age. No doubt it
savored more of the world and of things worldly than the festivals at
Rome. But the holy city bore it no grudge. It was other powers and other
arts than those which furnished out so grandly the Parisian exposition
against which Rome waged perpetual war. A Roman, let it not be forgotten,
and not the least pious among the Romans, the illustrious scientist,
Father Secchi, whose recent decease the world laments, took the highest
honors at the great industrial and artistic fair.

Paris, indeed, was in contrast with Rome, but more by its materialist
philosophy than by its magnificent exhibition of material improvements.
This philosophy availed itself of the exposition in order to show to what
extent it prevailed; and Paris extolled mere worldly power, luxury,
comfort and voluptuousness, whilst Rome had no praise but for humility,
poverty, self-denial, chastity. Paris applauded Alexander II., who
massacred the Poles; Rome, on the other hand, did honor to a Polish
bishop, Joseph Kunicievicz, who was cruelly murdered by Russian
fanaticism. Paris celebrated the apotheosis of free-thinking and religious
indifference; Rome, on the contrary, heaped honors on an Inquisitor, Peter
d’Arbues, who suffered martyrdom. Paris was loud in her acclamations to
the potentates and conquerors of the day, whilst Rome exalted an humble
shepherdess, Germaine Cousin, and some poor and obscure monks who were
hanged by heretics three hundred years ago, in a small town of Holland.
Yet was not Paris distinguished only by material glories, nor was Rome
altogether free from the taint of modern worldliness. There were those in
the latter city who, in the midst of an atmosphere of pious thought,
plotted deeds of diabolic wickedness, whilst Paris, which honored the
arts, was not without sympathy at Rome, and her prelates, the bishops of
France, were far from being the least among those five hundred high
dignitaries, twenty thousand priests of God’s Church, and more than one
hundred and fifty thousand Christian people from all quarters of the known
world, who took part in celebrating the glorious centenary and the no less
glorious victory of more than two hundred martyrs. The display of art,
industry and modern improvements of very kind presented, indeed, in the
midst of the beautiful French capital, a magnificent and cheering sight.
It was nothing, however, to the moral spectacle afforded by the presence
of ten or twelve mighty sovereigns around the now Imperial author of the
_coup d’etat_. It was supremely worldly. Who would then have said that
William of Prussia, and Napoleon III., the Czar of Russia, and the
successor of the caliphs, who, at the exhibition _fetes_, joined hands in
apparent friendship, were so soon to be engaged in deadly strife? and that
that capital, where so many great potentates came to honor Napoleon,
should, in a year or two, know him no more, and even struggle with all the
energy of desperation to obliterate every vestige of the improvements with
which he had so enriched and beautified the city? This was the world; for
the world is insincere. This was the world; for the figure thereof passeth
quickly away.

In Rome it was not so. There art and religion walked hand in hand.
Religion fostered art. Art was dutiful, and repaid the boon. It became the
handmaid of religion. Everywhere within the walls of her temples were seen
the products of art’s filial labor, in sculpture, painting, poetry and
music, her inexhaustible treasury of thought and history ever presenting
new sources of artistic power to the hand of genius. Those temples
themselves being, indeed, the finest monuments of architecture, bear
glorious witness to the excellent union of art and religion. Worldliness,
on the other hand, when at the height of its passion against religion,
seeks to destroy all the creations of art and genius. It aims at nothing
less than to reduce mankind to the condition of the savage, and is not
ashamed to acknowledge that such is its aim.

Let us hear the testimony of the Roman artists. This body, on the one
hand, rejoiced in the coming celebration of the centenary; on the other,
they were filled with sad forebodings as to the approaching downfall of
the Papal sovereignty by the threats of Garibaldi and the predictions of
Mazzini. They resolved, therefore, whilst yet the Pope, who, like his
predecessors, had shown them much kindness, and munificently rewarded
their labors, reigned at Rome, to present to him a dutiful and
affectionate address, which should remain, in time to come, as a testimony
of their gratitude to that beneficent sovereignty which they had but too
much reason to fear would soon come to an end. This address is so
important and tells so much truth, that it is deserving of a place in all
histories. It is as follows: “Most Holy Father, religion, policy and mere
human wisdom have protested in favor of the temporal power of the Papacy.
The arts come, in their turn, to lay their homage at the feet of your
Holiness, and to proclaim to the world that this power is to them
indispensable. Their voice must be heard and listened to. For when the
tide of generations recedes, the arts remain as the irrefutable witnesses
of the power and splendor of the civilization amid which these generations
lived. The sovereigns who encourage and develop them acquire immortal
renown; those who neglect or oppress them meet only with the contempt of
posterity. What royal dynasty has in this respect deserved so well of
civilization and humanity as that of the Sovereign Pontiffs? They have
been the watchful guardians of the master-pieces bequeathed to us by
antiquity. They have given these a home in their own palaces to show that
religion adopts and ennobles all that is truly beautiful. It is the
Sovereign Pontiffs who, by opening new avenues for modern art, have
brought it to the point of perfection, embodied in the master-pieces of
Raphael and Michael Angelo. They alone support in Rome that unique
assemblage of all that is beautiful in every order, that splendid
intellectual galaxy in whose light the artists of every land are formed.
Holy Father, the little spot of earth which the revolution has not yet
taken from you is the only place in which the arts find the inspiration
that is for them the breath of life, and the quiet without which that life
cannot expand. The soul of the true artist is filled with unspeakable
apprehension by the possibility of seeing these master-pieces destroyed or
scattered abroad, these treasures plundered, all this wealth annihilated;
and especially by the danger of seeing the ungraceful and meagre forms of
modern utilitarianism usurp the place held by the manners, the habits, the
face of all things in this privileged land of beauty, all consecrated by
the admiration of ages. Alas! Holy Father, what is happening in the rest
of Italy affords but too firm a ground for such apprehensions. The genius
of destruction is abroad there, and proceeds to sweep away pitilessly what
was the glory of ancient Italy. The spoliation and suppression of the
religious orders are one of the most deadly blows ever aimed at the
existence of the fine arts. Saddened by those forebodings, fearful of what
the future may bring forth, the artists resident in Rome come to the feet
of your Holiness to give utterance to their deep conviction that the
splendor, the greatness, the very existence of the fine arts in Europe are
inseparably connected with the maintenance of the beneficent power of the
Sovereign Pontiffs. Were it not that the rival passions which divide
Europe are of themselves fatally blind to consequences, the reign of your
Holiness would suffice to render this truth evident to all. For while
elsewhere national wealth is wasted in frivolous undertakings, or in
preparing instruments of destruction, the modest revenues inherited by
your Holiness are ever employed in continuing gloriously the noble labor
of your predecessors. On the one hand, you have drawn from obscurity the
beginnings of Christian art, thereby affording it new and precious data;
on the other, you have adorned Rome and the Vatican with works which
furnish a new and brilliant page to the grand history of art embodied in
the Vatican itself. While elsewhere reigned trouble and agitation, here
artists were able, beneath the blessed sway of your Holiness, to enjoy a
kindly welcome, an unrestrained liberty, and the peaceful contemplation of
those venerable structures and sites preserved so happily by the
Pontifical government from the sad alterations blindly wrought in other
cities by the troublous life of modern communities. May the Almighty One
hear our prayer, and persuade both sovereigns and nations that their honor
and glory will be measured, in coming ages, on the degree of protection
they shall have afforded to the temporal power of the Papacy, which has
ever been the unwearied promoter of the development of all the noblest
faculties in man, and which alone can continue to be the custodian of the
works of art originated by itself, and by it so faithfully treasured for
the benefit of all peoples!” This eloquent address will ever remain
carefully guarded by history, a noble monument of gratitude, and not only
this, but also as a testimony, all the more valuable as it is the
spontaneous utterance of men of the most cultivated intellect, in favor of
that sovereignty the destruction of which was sought, and has been
accomplished, by a party in whose ranks could be counted only rude
soldiers, bands of filibusters and politicians, if such they could be
called, whose counsels were inspired, not by the wisdom which
distinguishes statesmen, but by blind passion, and the most unworthy of
all passions, the passion of hatred—hatred of everything connected with
the Christian faith.

The great centennial celebration proceeded. Who would have dared to say,
whilst Nero reigned at Rome, and Christians were as pariahs, tolerated
only in order to afford the spectacle of their tortures to a heathen
multitude, that eighteen hundred years from Nero’s time, Christianity
would flourish and celebrate in that city, which was the scene of its
greatest trials, as well as all over the world, its victory and the
glorious martyrdom of its apostolic founders! The month of June, 1867,
will ever be memorable in the annals of the church. Never had so many
bishops assembled in the holy city. Nor were there ever there, at one
time, so many priests and pilgrims of all ranks and classes. The duties of
the time were commenced early in the month. On the 11th and 12th of June,
consistories were held in presence of the bishops, in order to make
preparation for the canonization of two hundred and five Japanese
Christians—priests, catechists, laymen, women and children—put to death in
hatred of the Christian faith, from 1617 to 1632. On the 26th of February,
1867, the decree of canonization had already been solemnly read in
presence of Pius IX., who, on the occasion, went in state to the Roman
College. On the 22nd February of the same year, the Holy Father signed
decrees bearing on the beatification of several holy persons, among whom
was Clement Maria Hofbauer, a Redemptorist. In an age of unbelief, it was
only to be expected that the enquiry should be made why the Pope made so
many saints?

In February, 1867, his Holiness replied, on occasion of a visit to the
Convent of the Capuchin Friars: “I have been shown,” said he, “a pamphlet,
entitled ‘Why so many Saints?’ Had we ever so much need of intercessors in
heaven and patterns in this world?” A little later he also said, alluding
to the festivals at Paris: “Man has not been placed on the earth solely in
order to amass wealth; still less in order to lead a life of pleasure. The
world is ignorant of this. It forgets mind, and devotes itself to matter.
Neither you nor I are this world of which I speak. You are come here in
the good disposition to seek the edification of your souls. I hope,
therefore, that you will bear away with you a salutary impression. Never
forget, my children, that you have a soul, a soul created in the image of
God, and which God will judge. Bestow on it more thought and care than on
industrial speculations, railways, and all those lesser objects which
constitute the good things of this world. I forbid you not to interest
yourselves in such transient matters. Do so reasonably and moderately. But
let me once more beg of you to remember that you have a soul.”

None of the ten or twelve potentates who visited Paris came to Rome. But
their absence was amply made up for by the immense concourse of clergy and
people from every quarter of the civilized world. The reverence shown to
Pius IX. by so many prelates was truly admirable. A Chinese bishop, Mgr.
Languillat, Vicar-apostolic of Nankin, coming for the first time into the
presence of the Supreme Pastor, fell prostrate on the threshold, and with
his arms extended towards the Pontiff, began to exclaim: “_Tu es Petrus!_”
(“Thou art Peter!”)

“Come to me, my brother,” said the Holy Father. “_Tu es Petrus!_” replied
the Chinese bishop, “_Tu es Petrus!_” Needless to say that when he
approached the venerable Pontiff affectionately embraced him, whilst both
gave vent to their feelings in tears. The laity of all ranks and classes
were no less devoted. A very moving scene which was witnessed this same
year (1867) is beautifully described by the Protestant correspondent of
the London _Morning Post_: “It is truly delightful to meet Pius IX. in the
country on foot, walking faster than one would suppose his age could
allow, his majestic person arrayed in a white soutane, and protected by a
large broad-brimmed purple hat. The other day, when I was at Aricia, he
was proceeding towards Genzano, followed by his guards and his carriage.
The ex-Queen of Naples and the Infanta, lately Regent, were walking in the
opposite direction, followed by their equipages and domestics. At a turn
of the road, exactly below the Villa Chigi, the two groups met. In a
moment their Royal Majesties were on their knees. His Holiness quickened
his pace in order to raise them up. The peasants of the neighborhood, who
were returning from their vineyards and orchards, together with their
wives and daughters, were struck with admiration. They also advanced and
knelt on each side of the central group formed by the illustrious
personages, calling out with all their might: ‘_Santo Padre, la
benedizione_.’ ‘Holy Father, your benediction!’ It was a splendid
tableau.”

On occasion of the centennial, substantial proofs of devotedness abounded.
The numerous pilgrims not only gave the homage of their faith, but also
brought magnificent offerings, as Peter’s pence, and presented addresses
with millions of signatures. One day fifteen hundred Italians were
received at an audience of the Holy Father, and made the offering of a
monumental album, together with one hundred purses filled with gold, as
the homage of one hundred Italian cities. Cardinal Manning laid at the
feet of Pius IX. £30,000—a generous testimony of English piety. The
Cardinal Archbishop of Mechlin brought to the centenary celebration
£16,000, the Archbishop of Posen £20,000, and the Mexican archbishop
£12,000, whilst Cuba offered 100,000 douros. “We are reversing the order
of nature,” smilingly observed the Holy Father; “here are the children
supporting the Father.” Nor was it too much for the wants of such a
Father. He received with one hand and generously dispensed with the other.
He took charge himself to lodge and entertain eighty-five of the poorer
bishops from Italy, the East, and remote missions. None of these were
allowed to depart without receiving abundant aid for their diocesan good
works.

Festival followed festival at Rome, from the 20th June till the 7th of
July. On the former day was celebrated the grand solemnity of Corpus
Christi. The Pope himself bore the holy sacrament, kneeling and surrounded
by the greater half of the whole Christian episcopate. It was remarked
that he was as calm and collected in the midst of such a great and
imposing multitude as if he had been in his private oratory. The vast
assemblage was also rapt in silent contemplation. Not a sound was heard
save the murmur of the fountains. An eye-witness has observed that if one
closed his eyes he could imagine himself in a desert. Next day was
celebrated the 21st anniversary of the coronation of Pius IX. He had
already said, in reply to an address read by Cardinal Patrizi, when all
the visitors to Rome were assembled on occasion of the commemoration of
his election—10th June—“Modern society is ardent in the pursuit of two
things, progress, and unity. It fails to reach either, because its motive
principles are selfishness and pride. Pride is the worst enemy of
progress, and selfishness by destroying charity, the bond of souls,
thereby rendering union impossible. Now God Himself has established the
Sovereign Pontiff in order to direct and enlighten society, to point out
evil and indicate the proper remedy. This induced me, some years ago, to
publish the ‘Syllabus.’ I now confirm that solemn act in your presence. It
is to be, henceforth, the rule of your teaching. We have to contend,
unceasingly, with the enemies who beset us. Placed on the mountain-top
like Moses, I lift up my hands to God in prayer for the triumph of the
church. I ask of you, my brother bishops, to support my arms, for they
grow weary. Take courage! The church must triumph. I leave this hope in
your hearts, not as a hope merely, but as a prophecy.”

On the 23rd was consecrated the Church of St. Mary of the Angels, an
admirable architectural monument, built originally according to the plans
of Michael Angelo, and rebuilt by Pius IX. The 24th, on leaving the
Basilica of St. John Lateran, the Pope was the object of a more splendid
ovation than any, perhaps, that he had as yet received. Kneeling on the
vast place, and completely filling it, the multitude which had not been
able to enter the Basilica waited for the Pontifical benediction. After
the Holy Father had raised his hand and pronounced the words of blessing,
the whole people rose, and, by a simultaneous movement and with one voice,
replied: “Live Pius IX.! Live the Pope-King!” Arms and handkerchiefs waved
amidst a rain of beautiful flowers. The Pope’s carriage was detained a
considerable time, and he himself, accustomed as he was to the
demonstrations of a devoted people, was moved to tears. His hood was
almost taken to pieces, thread by thread, by French ecclesiastics who were
close behind his Holiness, and who deposited the fragments, as precious
relics, in their breviaries. The crowd thronged around the Holy Father and
continued their acclamations as far as the Vatican, a distance of three
miles. Every new day gave proof of a like enthusiasm.

Pius IX. was anxious to address words of encouragement to the twenty
thousand priests of the church who had come to Rome. The greatness of
their number was a serious hindrance to this laudable purpose. The
spacious consistorial hall was by far too small to contain so many. On the
25th of June, however, they came to the hall, crowding its approaches, the
passages, the great staircase and the outer court. The Holy Father,
desiring to show his respect and affection for so many pilgrims of the
sacred order of the priesthood, came to the assembly in more than usual
state. The throne was raised a few steps, in order to afford an
opportunity of seeing and hearing the Supreme Pastor. The Pontiff was
preceded by the noble guard and the household prelates. As he entered the
hall, loud and joyous acclamations burst from the assembled priesthood,
for whom it was impossible to restrain their feelings of love and
veneration. The Holy Father himself was deeply moved, and, gathering
enthusiasm from the unusual scene around him, spoke so as to be heard even
in the remotest corridors, whilst those at a still greater distance were
visibly moved by the thrilling tones of his sonorous voice. There are no
readers who will not be interested in the words which fell from the lips
of the Sovereign Pontiff on this unique and solemn occasion. He began by
thanking the assembled clergy for their attendance in such imposing
numbers. They were the tribe in Israel, he continued, whose special
inheritance was the Lord. They stood between him and his people evermore,
offering with prayer and supplication the spotless victim of the new law.
Let them look well to the ministry entrusted to them, shining in the
presence of all men by the dignity of their bearing, the innocence of
their life, by integrity and charity, and the golden ornaments of every
virtue. “You,” he said, “who are the interpreters of the word of God, you
must preach it unweariedly to the wise and the unwise. Preach to them
Christ and Him crucified, not in loftiness of speech, but in the knowledge
of the spirit, never ceasing to call into the right road all who stray,
and confirm them in sound doctrine. Dispensers of the divine mysteries and
of the manifold grace of God, deal it out to the faithful people, to the
sick especially, in order that no help may fail them in their last
struggle with the evil one. Do not refuse to the little ones of the flock
the milk which they need. Let it be your dearest care to teach them, to
train them, to form them. Be the faithful and devoted helpmates of your
respective bishops; obeying them in all things, zealous to heal in your
parishes whatever is ailing, to bind up what is broken, to raise up what
is fallen, to seek what is lost, in order that in all things God may be
honored through our Lord Jesus Christ. Lift up your souls and contemplate
the immeasurable height of glory prepared by him for all true and faithful
laborers.”

On the 26th a great public consistory was held. The five hundred bishops
then at Rome were invited to attend. So great a number had never before
assembled in Italy or any part of Western Christendom. Nor indeed was
there ever, or could there ever have been, so great an occasion for their
assembling. There was question of celebrating the eighteen hundredth
anniversary of the glorious martyrdom of Rome’s first great bishop, so
many prelates had come together, also in order to venerate Peter in the
person of his venerable successor, who had now so long and so gloriously
borne witness to the Truth—the Truth in its plenitude, as first committed
to Peter and his fellow-apostles. The world was no longer heathen, and no
Nero reigned, but the spirit of unbelief was abroad, and its champions
were even then seeking to drive the Sovereign Pontiff from the holy city,
and were waging war with as determined wickedness as that of the early
persecutors against whom the apostles had so successfully contended.

The number of pilgrims from all parts of the Christian world, who had come
to Rome on occasion of the centennial celebration, is said by some writers
to have been not less than half a million. The presence of so great a
number of devoted Christian people on such an occasion was the noblest
protest that could be imagined against the vain boasts and prophecies of
the enemies of the Church which Peter founded. That church was not yet
forsaken, or destined soon to perish, which, in the nineteenth century of
her uninterrupted existence, could speak through so many witnesses—the
representatives of every civilized nation of the world.

The great consistorial hall in the Vatican Palace being too small to
contain so great a crowd of dignified listeners, the assembly was held in
the more spacious room which is situated above the vestibule of St.
Peter’s Church. At the opening of the consistory the cardinal’s hat was
conferred on the Archbishop of Seville, Luis de la Lastray Cuesta. A
formal petition for the beatification of Marie Rivier, the foundress of
the presentation Nuns of France, was then presented. After this ceremony,
the Holy Father, as was expected, delivered an allocution to the bishops.
He was full of admiration for their zeal in coming in such numbers on his
invitation, and he could not do less than express to them his gratitude.
Their presence was a striking proof of the unity of the Catholic Church.
“Yes, everything here proclaims that admirable unity by which, as through
a mysterious channel, all the gifts and graces of the Holy Spirit flow
into the mystic body of Christ, calling forth in every one of its members
those acts of faith and charity which excite the wonder of all mankind.
What has brought you here? Are you not come to decree the honors of
sanctity to those heroes of the church, the greater number of whom bore
away the palm of victory in their glorious witness for Christ? Of these
some died in defending the primacy of this apostolic see, which is the
centre of truth and unity; others gave their lives in defence of the unity
and integrity of the faith; others again shed their blood in the endeavor
to bring back schismatics to the one fold. Is it not providential that
such heroism should be commemorated and honored at the very moment when
the Catholic faith and the authority of the Holy See are the objects of
such furious and implacable conspiracies? We are also here to celebrate
with solemn rites the memory of that auspicious day, eighteen hundred
years ago, when Peter and Paul consecrated by their heroic witnessing and
their precious blood this impregnable stronghold of Catholic unity. What
can be more reasonable than that our joyous commemoration of this
triumphant death of the prince of the apostles should be graced by your
presence? For he belongs to the entire Catholic world. It is also most
important that the enemies of religion should conclude from what they
witness here how mighty is the energy, how unfailing the life, of that
Catholic Church which they so bitterly hate; how little wisdom they
display in matching their strength and their temporary triumphs over her
against that incomparable union of living forces which the creative power
of Christ has bound around this central rock. More than ever is it needful
in our age, that all men should see and understand that the only strong
and lasting tie between men’s souls depends on the reign over all of the
same Spirit of God. Besides, what can make a more abiding impression on
Catholic nations; what can draw them more powerfully and bind them more
closely in obedience to this apostolic chair and to us, than to see how
much their pastors cherish the rights and duties of Catholic unity, than
to behold them journeying from the farthest lands, notwithstanding every
inconvenience and impediment, in order to visit Rome and the apostolic
chair, as well as to revere in our humble person the successor of Peter
and the Vicar of Christ? We have been always convinced, from the moment we
beheld you approaching Peter in the person of his successor, or even
entering this city, which is impregnated with his blood, that from thence
to each one of you should go forth a special virtue. Yes, from this tomb,
where Peter’s ashes repose amid the veneration of the Christian world, a
hidden power, a salutary energy, emanates which instils into the souls of
the Chief Pastors the desire of great undertakings and of vast designs,
inspiring that fearlessness and magnanimity which enable them to put down
the impudent boldness of their assailants. There cannot be offered to the
eyes of men and angels a more magnificent spectacle than what one beholds
in such a concourse of pilgrims as this. You who come from the ends of the
earth to this home of your Father remind us not only of that pilgrimage
which leads us all to the eternal home, you also call to mind the journey
of the chosen people from Ægypt to the promised land, the twelve tribes
marching together, each under its chief, bearing its own name, having its
own appropriate place in the camp. Every family there was obedient to its
parents, every company of warriors hearkened to the voice of its captain,
and the entire multitude to the divinely-appointed leader. All these
tribes, nevertheless, were but one people, adoring the same God,
worshipping at the same altar, obeying the same laws, having one Pontiff,
Aaron, and one leader, Moses—one people, enjoying common rights in the
perils and labors of warfare as well as in the results of victory,
dwelling in the same tents, and fed by the same miraculous bread, whilst
all yearned for the same end of their pilgrimage. Nothing is to us the
subject of such ardent longing as to see both ourselves and the whole
church deriving from this precious union the most salutary blessings. It
has long been a serious matter of thought for us, and which, indeed, we
communicated to several of the episcopal body, to hold an Œcumenical
Council, in which, with the Divine assistance, our united counsels and
solicitude should devise such efficient remedies as are necessary for the
evils that afflict the church.”

Pius IX. had for a long time entertained the idea of holding an Œcumenical
Council. And no doubt his mind found relief when he communicated his
purpose to the assembled bishops. Two years later, as is well known, the
proposed council was convened at the Vatican, and from this circumstance
is known in history as the Vatican Council. Bishops, priests and laity
heard the intimation with delight. Their fervor and enthusiasm increased
as the day of the grand centennial celebration approached. The vigil, 28th
June, was enlivened by illuminations. By early dawn on the 29th, the feast
of SS. Peter and Paul, people poured into Rome from the surrounding
territory. They were welcome visitors. The Romans, far from being jealous
of so great a concourse of strangers, hailed them as brothers, engaged, as
they also were, in the great object of doing honor to the memory of Rome’s
apostles. The first grand public ceremony of the day was the solemn
canonization, of which no description need be given in this place, as
everything was conducted in the same way as in 1852 and 1863. The Holy
Father himself then celebrated High Mass, and, what is still more
noteworthy, delivered the sermon of the day. Until the time of Pius IX.,
no Pope had preached in public since the epoch of the Crusades and the
Pontificate of Gregory VII. The Holy Father set an example to all who
preach on great and solemn public occasions. His sermon was short, but
replete with instruction, and marked by that earnestness which commands
attention and moves the soul. The music, as was fitting at so great a
celebration, was given by three choirs, in all four hundred voices, which
completely filled the immense Basilica, conveying, by the exquisite music
which they gave forth, an idea of that more than earthly harmony which
ever ascends to the throne of heaven from the angelic choirs. There was
also a solemn service in the afternoon, which was alike highly interesting
and calculated to inspire devotion. The general illumination which took
place at night rivalled the splendor of the bright Italian day. On June
30th was celebrated the special feast of St. Paul in the fine church
dedicated to this great apostle, and with scarcely less magnificence than
that of St. Peter had been honored.

The bishops now desired, before leaving Rome, to present an address to the
Holy Father, as well in reply to his allocution of 26th June as to express
their gratitude for the great kindness which he had shown them. The 1st
July was the day chosen for the presentation of this address. It is a
model of elegant Latinity, and completely refutes the modern assertion
that churchmen are unacquainted with the Latin of the classics. The reply
of the assembled bishops to the fatherly allocution of Pius IX. affords,
moreover, an admirable proof of the sympathy of the united episcopate with
the Supreme Bishop. It shows the excellent union of the bishops with one
another, and their no less perfect union with their Head. What more could
there have been in the brightest days of the church’s history?

(M106) The French garrison had departed before the commencement of the
memorable celebrations that have been just described. Although the
population of Rome was literally doubled by the presence of pious
strangers, not the slightest breach of order was ever observed. The
exercise of filial duty required not to be watched over by any outside
power. It was now seven months since Napoleon III. had withdrawn his
troops.

On the 6th December, 1866, Pius IX. had taken leave of them in the
following words:

“Your flag, which left France eighteen years ago with commission to defend
the rights of the Holy See, was at that time attended by the prayers and
acclamations of all Christendom. To-day it returns to France. I desire, my
dear children, that it may be welcomed by the same acclamations. But I
doubt it. It is only too manifest, indeed, that because it will appear to
have ceased to protect me my enemies will not on that account cease to
attack me. Quite the contrary. We must not delude ourselves. The
revolution will come here. It has declared and still declares that it
will. An Italian personage in high position lately said that Italy is made
but not completed. Italy would be undone if there were here one spot of
earth where order, justice and tranquillity prevail! Formerly, six years
ago, I conversed with a representative of France. He asked me if there
were anything I wished to transmit to the Emperor. I replied: St.
Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, which is now a French city, beholding the
barbarians at the gates of the town, prayed the Lord that he might die
before they entered, because his mind was horror-struck by the thought of
the evils which they would cause. I added: Say this to the Emperor: he
will understand it. The ambassador made answer: Most Holy Father, have
confidence; the barbarians will not enter. The ambassador was no prophet.
Depart, my children, depart with my blessing and my love. If you see the
Emperor, tell him that I pray for him every day. It is said that his
health is not very good; I pray that he may have health. It is said that
his mind is not at ease. I pray for his soul. The French nation is
Christian; its Chief ought also to be Christian. Let there be prayer with
confidence and perseverance, and this great and powerful nation may obtain
what it desires. Depart, my children; I impart to you my benediction, and
with it my wish that it may attend you throughout the journey of life.
Think not that you leave me here alone and deprived of all resource. God
remains with me; in Him I place my trust!”

Pius IX., in a more private communication, said: “Yes, God sustains His
vicar and aids his weakness. He may permit him to be driven away, but only
in order to show, once more, that he can bring him back. I have been
exiled; I returned from exile. If banished anew, I will again return. And
if I die—well! if I die, Peter will rise again!”

Thus did Pius IX. clearly foresee the danger but was not on that account
less confident. Nor did his confidence lessen his foresight. What, indeed,
he said publicly, “The revolution will come here,” everyone capable of
reasoning said in secret. The September convention left the small
Pontifical sovereignty surrounded on all sides by its enemies, just as the
government of Napoleon III. would have been if isolated in Paris and the
two neighboring departments, all the rest of the French territory being in
the power of a republic, or a Bourbon Monarchy. In vain did M. Rouher
endeavor to demonstrate to the Chambers that a stable equilibrium was
established, and which was of such a character as to remain by itself for
an indefinite period. Nobody was convinced by his reasoning. But the
Imperial majorities, recruited as they were by the system of official
candidatures, asked not of the complaisant minister reasons which he had
not to give. They sought only pretexts which should allow them to vote,
with a show of decency, according to the wishes of the master.

The Holy Father was destined to enjoy a period of success before his
prophecy came to be fulfilled. Immediately after the disastrous but
glorious events of 1860, the courageous Belgian, Mgr. de Merode, as
Minister of War, and afterwards General Kanzler, in this same capacity,
greatly renewed the small Pontifical army. As their labors deserved, they
were attended with success. Lamoriciere died towards the end of 1865; but
on the new alarm of danger, many of his veterans of Castelfidardo and
Ancona, returned to Rome in 1866. The flower of the French, Dutch,
Belgian, English, Swiss and Roman youth made it a point of honor to swell
the ranks of the Papal Zouaves. The high tone, the illustrious names of
several of these new crusaders, and the admirable discipline which
prevailed among them all, soon won for them the respect even of the few
revolutionists who were at Rome. These brave and self-sacrificing youths,
many of whom served at their own cost, were addressed as “Signor Soldato”
(Signor Soldier) by the passers-by, whilst the venal scribes of the
outside revolutionary press did their best to stigmatize them as “the
mercenaries of the Pope.” Whilst some of these warriors devoted their
life, others bestowed their gold. It is honorable to the Catholic people
that, in the circumstances, they added the good work of supporting the
Pontifical army to their collections of Peter’s pence. In order to furnish
the sum of 500 francs (£20 sterling) yearly, which was required for each
soldier, artisans and even domestic servants freely subscribed. In 1867,
the Catholics of the diocese of Cambrai, sent two hundred Zouaves; those
of Rodez and Arras, one hundred for each diocese; whilst Cologne, Nantes,
Rennes and Toulouse did almost as much.

Meanwhile, having its eyes somewhat opened by the light from Sadowa, the
French government appeared to have abandoned, as regarded the protection
of the Holy See, its secret maxim of 1860: “Neither do anything nor allow
anything to be done.” In withdrawing from Rome, it had authorized the
creation, under a chief whom it was pleased itself to designate, a body of
volunteers, selected chiefly from the French army, whose duty it should be
to guard the Pope. This corps was called the Legion of Antibes, from the
name of the city where it was formed. Pius IX., besides, could rely on the
fidelity of the Roman army, properly so called. Thus was he more than
sufficiently provided against any possible internal disturbance. It was
not to be expected that he should be prepared to meet a formidable foreign
invasion of his state.

The notorious Garibaldi had already made preparations for invading the
Roman territory. Whilst he neglected not to strengthen the _International_
at the Geneva Congress of Demagogues, the indefatigable brigand availed
himself of the crowding of pilgrims to Rome in order to deceive the
Pontifical police, and to introduce into the city bands of cutthroats,
munitions of war, and arms of every kind, not excepting Orsini bombs.
After the departure of the bishops, he opened publicly, in Italy,
subscription lists, and enrolled soldiers. The Piedmontese government
stores were at his service as they were in 1860, in order to aid him in
clothing and arming his volunteers. These were joined by numerous
functionaries and officers of the regular army, who took no pains to
conceal their Piedmontese arms and uniforms. Municipalities, at public
deliberative meetings, voted subsidies to the Garibaldians, and railway
managers provided them with special trains. Whilst so many things that
clearly showed the complicity of Piedmont were done, Victor Emmanuel sent
protestation after protestation to Paris. He did not, by any means,
intend, he said, to disembarrass himself of the obligations which were
imposed on him by the first article of the convention of the 15th
September, 1865. It might be relied upon, besides, that he would check the
agitators and repress by force, even, if necessary, all violation of the
Pontifical frontier. Nor did the wily monarch confine himself to words. He
acted as he could act so well. Garibaldi was sent to his island, Caprera;
but only in order to escape from it at the opportune moment, through the
seven vessels by which he was guarded. An order for his arrest was then
issued. Active search was made for him at Genoa, at Turin, everywhere
except at Florence, where he harangued the people in the most public
places, even under the windows of the King’s palace. Later, when it was
undertaken to arrest him at Florence, it so happened that he had started
by a special train for the Roman frontier, together with a complete staff.
(M107) The telegraph was put in requisition in order to turn back the
train. But, possibly through the fault of a disobedient employee, the
telegraph failed to accomplish its purpose. The Italian government
neglected not to hold an investigation in regard to this matter, and swore
that the guilty party, if found out, would be punished. What more could be
desired? Was not France satisfied with much less than this in 1860? Whilst
diplomacy was thus playing its _role_, Garibaldi and his myrmidons were
penetrating on all sides at once the Pontifical territory. Twenty-seven
gensd’armes, who guarded the small town of Aquapendente, were surprised by
two hundred and fifty Garibaldians, who, on being re-inforced by another
band, marched thence on Ischia, Valentano and Canino, pillaging the public
chests, sacking the convents and churches, prudently retiring as often as
they met Pontifical forces in any considerable numbers. Eighty-five
Zouaves, or soldiers of the line, having rashly pursued them at Bagnorea,
and attacked them with the bayonet, were repulsed with loss. It could not
well have been otherwise, considering the great disparity of numbers.
Garibaldi shouted victory, in his usual emphatic style: “Hail to the
victors of Aquapendente and Bagnorea! The foreign mercenaries have fled
before the valiant champions of Italian liberty. Those braggarts who
thirsted for blood have experienced the noble generosity of their brave
conquerors. As to you, priests, who know so well how to burn, torture and
imprison; you who drink, with hyena-like delight, in the cup of your
deceit, the blood of the liberators; we pardon you, and, together with
you, that butcher soldiery, the pestilent scum of a faithless faction.”

The conquerors, however, were driven from their easy conquests before they
received this proclamation which spoke of mercy in terms that expressed it
so poorly. Events which were a cruel satire on Garibaldi’s words, and
which he had not foreseen, caused his bands to fall into the power of the
Pontifical troops, so that it was they who sued for pardon and obtained
it. It can even be said that on this occasion the generosity of the
soldiers of the Pope was excessive, for the vanquished enemy had been
guilty of many other crimes besides that of rising in arms against the
legitimate government. They had pillaged the Cathedral of Bagnorea, broken
the tabernacle, stolen the sacred vessels, defiled the image of the
Madonna, pierced the crucifix with their bayonets, decapitated the statues
of the saints, and enacting an infernal parody, shot an inoffensive man,
in order that human blood might be shed on the altar of sacrifice.

At Subiaco, the governor, who was a priest, fell, together with the town,
into the hands of the banditti. They were preparing to sack the place and
put the governor to death, when a Pontifical troop appeared. The struggle
was short. The Garibaldian chief was slain, and the rest fled. They who
guarded the prisoner threw themselves at his knees, imploring mercy. “Have
pity on us, my Lord; do not give us up to the Zouaves; they would kill
us.” The governor made them go into his oratory and closed the door.
Meanwhile the commandant of the Zouaves arrived, gave him the details of
the battle, and spoke of the prisoners he had taken. “Everybody makes
prisoners,” said the governor, smiling. “I have some also, although not,
like you, a man of the sword.” “Where are they?” “Ah! they are mine and
not yours. Promise that you will respect my absolute right of conqueror;
if not, I will not show them.” The commandant made the desired promise,
and the governor opened the door of his oratory and made the Garibaldians
come out. These prisoners were greatly amazed. Having asked and obtained
the governor’s priestly blessing, they freely recrossed the Italian
frontier.

The action at Monte-Libretti, which took place on the 14th October, was of
a more serious character. Eighty Zouaves contended from half-past five in
the evening till eight o’clock against twelve hundred Garibaldians. Arthur
Guillemin, their captain, and Urbain de Quelen, their second lieutenant,
fell gloriously. When night came, the Zouaves being unable to fight any
longer, and not venturing to establish themselves in the first houses
which they had taken, whilst all the rest of the town still swarmed with
the enemy, retired in good order, bearing away their dead, and also twelve
prisoners. They returned next morning, in order to renew the attack, but
found the place evacuated.

The violation of the Pontifical territory was now too flagrant to be
denied any longer, and the more so, as the Cabinet of the Tuileries was
not ignorant of anything that was taking place. It was, by a fortunate
accident, represented at Rome by a diplomatist of a different school from
that of Thouvenel and Lavalette. The ambassador, M. de Sartiges, was
absent on leave, and was replaced by his first secretary, M. Arman. The
latter understood his duty, and, at the risk of being importunate, ceased
not to make known, every day, to France, the events which were so rapidly
occurring. Thus did a comparatively humble secretary save the honor of his
country. Compelled by the terms of the September convention to stay the
invasion, the Government of Florence stationed a corps of forty thousand
men, under the command of Cialdini, around the Pontifical frontier, and
intimated to the Tuileries that it was for its protection. It soon became
evident that it was in order to fall upon it, in the wake of Garibaldi, as
they had fallen upon the Kingdom of Naples in 1860. Meanwhile, the
invaders passed without any difficulty between the different posts, and
when beaten and pursued by the Pontifical troops, they retired and
reformed behind the ranks of the Piedmontese.

(M108) Hence the small body of Pontifical soldiers was easily overwhelmed,
and the Garibaldian hordes, although beaten, were always advancing. Rome
was filled with consternation. The cutthroats of the revolution spoke of
applying gunpowder to public edifices. And indeed they set about
fulfilling their threat by blowing up the Serratori barracks, which they
had undermined, and which buried, one evening, in their ruins, the music
band of the Zouaves, whilst they were engaged at a rehearsal. Fortunately
the bandsmen were the only victims. The rest of the corps which remained
to guard the city was at the moment patrolling at a distance from the
barracks. The Garibaldians expected the explosion. They rushed into the
streets and endeavored to avail themselves of the terror and confusion
which generally prevailed in order to seize the military posts. They
managed to assassinate, in the dark, a few soldiers and some gensd’armes;
but they succeeded not even in ringing the alarm-bell at the Capitol,
which was intended to be their signal. Their principal leader, a Milanese,
whose name was Cairoli, was killed with arms in his hands, together with
some twenty of his followers, in a vineyard near the city; and so failed
the enterprise.

The French Cabinet ceased, at length, to persist in the face of the
clearest evidence and against the unanimous voice of the national
conscience. A small body of soldiers had been sent to the French port of
Toulon. It received orders to embark for Civita Vecchia. Catholics were
relieved from their anxiety. Meanwhile came new assurances from Florence.
A counter-order was given, and the embarkation suspended. Victor Emmanuel
and his minister, Ratazzi, thought they understood the secret meaning of
this counter-order. They remembered the past, and the troops of Cialdini
boldly crossed the Pontifical frontier.

(M109) French historians relate that, on receiving this news, all who had
any concern for the honor of France believed that it had come to an end,
and made up their minds, in sullen silence, to swallow the new disgrace.
They who were indifferent, even, became indignant. People who met on the
boulevards of Paris asked one another to what extremes those Italian
mountebanks (farceurs) would bring them. The enemies of the Pope, who were
equally hostile to the Emperor, rejoiced, but secretly. The deputies
either protested together with the Catholics, or dared not show
themselves; the ministers were silent. Finally, the army took its
departure from Toulon. It was time that it should; and this appeared to be
well understood. There was great irresolution in coming to a decision. It
was no less promptly carried into effect. The French army disembarked at
Civita Vecchia on the 29th October, under the command of General de
Failly.

Three days earlier, 26th October, the small town of Monte Rotondo, five
leagues from Rome, was attacked by Garibaldi in person, attended by a band
of five thousand four hundred fighting men. Its garrison consisted of five
hundred men of the legion of Antibes. These few brave soldiers held their
ground for two days and repelled five attacks. They were compelled at last
to yield, having exhausted all their munitions of war. They retired, but
left Garibaldi so much weakened and disorganized by his inglorious victory
that he was unable for several days to advance. Thus, for the moment, did
the legion of Antibes save Rome.

(M110) Monte Rotondo, it is almost superfluous to relate, experienced the
fate of Bagnorea. Nothing comparable in point of atrocity had occurred
since the invasion of Italy by the barbarians. In justice to Garibaldi, it
must be said that he rebuked publicly by an order of the day, dated 28th
October, the “shameful excess” of his fellow-adventurers, and proceeded to
expurgate their ranks. But he could not hinder them from being what they
were, a mob of miscreants that the secret societies of the whole world had
discharged on the Pontifical State. He was not less astonished to meet
with so poor a welcome on the part of the people whom it was supposed he
came to deliver. His chief lieutenant, Bertani, bears witness to this
state of things, in the _Riforma_ of 18th November, 1867: “It must be
admitted,” said this writer, “that the people of the Roman States have no
idea of an Italy one and free. We have not been greeted or encouraged by a
single cry of rejoicing; nor have we obtained either any spontaneous
assistance, or even a word of consolation, from these brutified people.”

General Kanzler, the pro-Minister of War, well understood that it was
impossible to defend for any length of time the frontier against bands
that were constantly recruited. Accordingly, he ordered all the isolated
garrisons to concentrate at Rome. It was more important than anything else
to preserve the Papal city from being surprised by the invaders.
Garibaldi, when re-inforced, marched in advance of Monte Rotondo. Cialdini
followed him at some distance, but without daring as yet openly to join
the banditti. The French, however, were _en route_. Kanzler took his
departure from Rome on 3rd November, at two o’clock in the morning,
followed by 3,000 Pontifical troops and 2,000 French soldiers. “Come,”
said he, to M. Emilius Keller, Dr. O’Zannam, and some others who had just
arrived from Paris, in order to organize the ambulance service of the
Pontifical army, “come, and you will see a fine battle.” The small army
met the enemy at one o’clock in the afternoon, at a short distance from
the town of Mentana, the ancient Nomentum from which the Nomentan way
(_via Nomentana_) took its name. Garibaldi’s command was from 10,000 to
12,000 strong. He placed his men in ambuscade, partly on small hills that
were covered with wood, and partly scattered them, as fusileers, along the
hedges. His left wing was commanded by Pianciani, who, some time later,
was Mayor of Rome. Kanzler’s force commenced firing. But what could it
avail against an enemy that was invisible and in superior numbers? A
veteran of Castelfidardo, Lieutenant-Colonel de Charette, the same who was
destined afterwards to immortalize himself at Patay and at Mans,
understood that nothing was to be gained by a fusillade. “Forward,” he
cried, “my Zouaves! charge with the bayonet; and, remember, the French
army is looking on.” The Zouaves reply: “Live Pius IX!” and spring forward
with their leader. The Garibaldians are dislodged from the first hill—from
the other hills, and would have been utterly routed but for the formidable
intrenchments presented by the Santucci vineyard, which was laid out in
gardens rising in storeys, one above the other, and intersected by walls.
Garibaldi was posted on the summit, in a villa, whence he directed his
fire without being exposed to personal danger. His position was, indeed,
strong. Charette’s troop was observed to waver. “Forward, Zouaves!” cried
their leader, “or I shall die without you!” As he spoke, his horse was
struck by a ball and fell dead. Meanwhile, the Zouaves scaled the walls
and the ravines, without heeding those who fell. Garibaldi was
disconcerted by this living tornado. He fell back from his villa to the
houses, and thence to the Castle of Mentana. The Zouaves followed in the
face of a murderous fire, discharged from the walls of the castle; but
they always advanced, and finally, repelled, by a bayonet charge, a
renewed and general attack of the enemy. Such efforts, however, could not
have been sustained for any length of time unaided, and bravery must, in
the end, have given way to numbers. General de Courten, who directed this
attack, sent to ask assistance from General Polhes, who commanded the army
of France. The French soldiers had been, hitherto, inactive, although by
no means unheeding spectators of the combat. “Bravo! Zouaves, bravo!”
cried they, eagerly desiring to share in the fight. At a sign from their
chief, they sprang forward in their turn. At their head was Colonel
Saussier, of the 20th regiment of the line, who was afterwards general and
member of the National Assembly at Versailles. The sudden and hitherto
unknown fire of the chassepots carried death and terror within the
precincts of the castle. Meanwhile, a detachment of Zouaves managed to
place themselves between Mentana and Monte Rotondo, and so intercepted the
reinforcements which were hastening from the latter place to join the
Garibaldians. At sight of this achievement, the bands, already much
demoralized, were thrown into confusion. Night came, and, favoring their
flight, changed it to a rout. Garibaldi himself, who had so often shouted,
“_Rome or death_”—stole away, under cover of the darkness, like the
meanest of the fugitives. His sons did in like manner. It was expected
that they would renew the battle next day, as Monte Rotondo, which they
still held, presented a convenient position for rallying. They did nothing
of the kind. On the very night which followed the engagement Garibaldi and
his sons recrossed the Italian frontier. “He always runs away” (_si salva
sempre_), said his followers, in the bitterness of their disappointment,
when so shamefully betrayed and abandoned. The French soldiers, on the
other hand, always inclined to raillery and punning, baptized the action
of the preceding day, calling it the battle of _Montre ton dos_. The
Garibaldians, who held the castle, as well as the rest of the banditti who
could not get away in time, surrendered, unconditionally, to General
Polhes. There was but little bloodshed on the side of the victors, thanks
to the rapidity with which the victory was won. The losses of the French
troops were not more than two killed, two officers and thirty-six privates
wounded. Of the Pontifical force there were twenty killed and one hundred
and twenty-three wounded. Several of these died of their wounds.

(M111) Among those noble victims who claim the gratitude of the Catholic
world, were names already dear to the church—such as Bernard de
Quatre-barbe, a nephew of the defender of Ancona; Rodolph de Maistre,
grandson of the immortal author of “The Pope;” and John de Muller, son of
the celebrated German controversialist. As if nothing that is glorious
should be wanting to the field of Mentana, it had also its martyrs of
charity. The Sisters of St. Vincent de Paul went and came among the
wounded and the dying, giving their aid alike to all, no matter what their
uniform. There was need of water. A Pontifical Zouave, Julius Watts
Russell, ran to find some for a Garibaldian who was at the point of death.
As he was gently raising the head of the moribund, in order that he might
drink, he was himself struck with a ball and fell dead on the body of him
whom he had endeavored to succour. On his person was found a small note,
in which he thus exhorted himself: “My soul, O, my soul! love God and
pursue thy way.” What Christian would not be envious of a like death—a
death which nobly crowned such a life as these few words necessarily
suppose?

(M112) The vanquished had been fanaticised by the secret societies as well
as by Garibaldi himself, that infuriated enthusiast, who could not write
four lines nor utter four words without enshrining therein the treasons of
the black race, that prurient sore of Italy; or the _venom_ of the
Vatican, that nest of vipers; or the lies of Pius IX., that pest, that
monster, twice accursed, as priest and as king. So when these people were
made prisoners, they expected nothing better than the hardest treatment
and the most terrible vengeance. How surprised must they not then have
been to find that their wounded were attended to on the field of battle,
and the same care and attention extended to them as to the wounded of the
Pontifical force, whilst those who were sound met with no other punishment
than to be well guarded at first, and afterwards released by degrees, as
it became certain that Garibaldi would be in no hurry to renew his game.
Finally, a complete amnesty was granted. This extreme clemency of a
legitimate government towards an invading banditti presented a noble and
happy contrast with the implacable revenge of the usurping King of
Piedmont. Victor Emmanuel, in fact, had no hesitation in putting to death
the Spanish general Borges and his Neapolitan comrades, who were arrested
whilst bearing arms in an endeavor to deliver the kingdom of Naples, and
restore its former king, Francis II.

(M113) Two men only were excepted from the Pontifical amnesty. These were
the authors of that atrocious act, the blowing up of the Sorristori
barracks. Their crime, indeed, could not be considered as anything
connected with the war, but simply as cowardly assassination. Those two
wretches, Monti and Tognetti, underwent a regular trial, which lasted more
than a year, and at which all the forms required by law were strictly
observed. They were convicted, and ended by acknowledging everything. They
suffered capital punishment, and, at their execution, begged pardon of God
and men. The day after this execution—coming generations will scarcely
believe so strange a fact—the Chamber of Deputies at Florence solemnly
protested against it, as did also Victor Emmanuel. The secret societies
opened a subscription list for the widows of the executed criminals.
Victor Emmanuel took part in it. And thus did a king honor parties who
commit murder by gunpowder plots. True, this king was the same prince who,
in pursuance of a decree issued by Garibaldi, at Naples, in 1861,
pensioned the widow of the regicide, Agesilas Milano.

(M114) Pius IX. entertained quite a different idea of the duties of
royalty. He was persuaded that an example should be made of the foul crime
of Monti and Tognetti, and so could not be moved. “A king,” said he, “owes
justice to all alike, certainly not excepting honest people: and hence
assassins must not be allowed to count on impunity.” He went kindly to
visit the wounded Garibaldians, “those unfortunate people, a great many of
whom were only misled, and who, nevertheless, were his children.” Two
hundred of them had been conveyed to a lower room in the Castle of St.
Angelo. He visited them quite alone, and thus addressed them: “Here I am,
my friends; you see before you him whom your general calls the Vampire of
Italy; you all took up arms against me, and you see that I am only a poor
old man! You are in need of shoes, clothes and linen. Well, the Pope on
whom you made war will cause you to be supplied with all these things. He
will then send you back to your families; only before your departure, you
will, from love to me, make a spiritual retreat.” The unfortunate rebels
could not believe their eyes or their ears. Some turned away from him in
sullen wrath, like demons who will not give up hating. Others, in greater
numbers, seized hold of the paternal hand which was raised over them to
bless them, and bathed it with their tears. The good Pope, marvelled at
the designs of God, who brings good out of evil. “_O felix culpa_” (“O
happy fault!”), said he, alluding to the prayers of Holy Saturday, “if
these children had not borne arms against me, they would not, perhaps,
have died so piously.”

It was some time before the details of Mentana were known in France. The
government, it would appear, feared to acknowledge that the French
soldiers took part in the engagement. When, however, the general’s report
put an end to all doubt on the subject, there were no bounds to the rage
of the revolutionary party. The revolution, hitherto, had used Louis
Napoleon as a facile and valuable instrument. It could not pardon him
Mentana. But France was not all revolutionary. The mass of the nation,
honest and loyal, shared not the ideas of the secret societies. Far from
regretting what had taken place, the French people dreaded lest there
should not have been enough done.

Cialdini, indeed, had been able to withdraw his troops, not with honor but
without molestation, within the Italian frontier, whilst no account was
required of his violation of the September convention. The ministers
continued to discuss Italian unity as freely as they had been in the habit
of doing for eight years, and the officious demagogue papers which were
devoted to Prince Napoleon began to demand the speedy return of the French
troops from Rome, and that by virtue of the famous convention which,
according to these politicians, was binding on France, but not on Italy.
The legislative body was moved. Not only the deputies who were declared
Catholics, and who always divided against the government on the Roman
question, but a great number of those also who had never until that time
shown any indocility at the moment of voting, resolved to force the
government to make a clear and public declaration of its intentions. The
debate was opened by M. Thiers in an eloquent speech at the sitting of 4th
December. He proved, and the proof was not difficult, that no reliance
could be placed on the word of Victor Emmanual or Italian promises. “The
House of Savoy,” said he, “goes to a falcon hunt with Garibaldi. If the
latter fails he is taken to Caprera. If he succeeds, and takes a kingdom,
they say to him, you are the revolution: your prey does not belong to you;
it is ours, who are order and legality.” Jules Favre, a barrister,
shamelessly spoke in a contrary sense, and endeavored to justify Italy.
His sophistry met with no response.

The minister, M. Rouher, could not retreat. He made a long speech, in
which he defended the policy of Napoleon III. against the two former
speakers, and involved himself once more in the inconceivable idea of
neither sacrificing Italian unity to the Pope’s temporal sovereignty nor
that sovereignty to Italian unity. (On the one hand, M. Jules Favre
objected that Italy, and chiefly amongst others, Menabrea, the actual head
of the Florence Cabinet, whose wisdom and moderation had just been praised
by the French minister, ceased not to declare that the possession of Rome
was indispensable.) On the other hand, there were loud murmurs which
protested against the iniquitous equality which was sought to be
established between the victim and his executioner. M. Rouher perceived
that the majority which the Imperial government had commanded for sixteen
years, was on the point of slipping from him; so, turning to Jules Favre,
he declared “that he was not agreed with him on any point—that he
absolutely rejected his policy.” Then, addressing the Conservatives, he
affirmed that they would defend Rome so long as the desired reconciliation
did not take place—that France would never, never abandon Rome. He
concluded by conjuring the deputies to cling to the government which gave
the battle of Mentana as a pledge of its sincerity. This declaration was
greeted with prolonged applause, and it could no longer be doubted that
the vote would be almost unanimous. The deputies, however, determined that
the head of their church should not be imperfectly protected, required of
the minister a distinct explanation of what he meant by defending Rome.
They were resolved that the government should not have the power to give
up to Italy the territory around the city which the Pope still possessed,
and leave to him only the walls of Rome. This position was maintained by
the veteran orator of French parliaments, M. Berryer. A great number of
deputies came to his support, so necessary was it understood to be to
guard against all subterfuge in transacting with Napoleon III. M. Rouher
was constrained to reascend the tribune. He did so, he said, more fully to
express his idea, and declared, whilst the Chamber loudly applauded, that
the Emperor guaranteed not only the city of Rome, but also the territory
actually possessed by the Holy See, in all its integrity. Such was the
memorable sitting of 4th December, 1867, at which the will of France was
forced on its despotic ruler. But both for him and the country, French
writers assure us, it was too late. If the representatives of the nation,
they say, had shown from the beginning the same decision; if the empire
had always spoken as on the 4th December, 1867; if, above all, it had
acted conformably to its words, it would either not have fallen or fallen
with honor. But never would we have seen either Italian unity or German
unity, and the black flag of Prussia would not wave to-day over Metz,
Malhouse and Strasbourg.

Piedmont having withdrawn its threatening force on the approach of the
French troops, the Holy See had nothing to dread, for some time at least,
from foreign invasion. It remained only to provide against the attacks of
banditti such as had been just defeated at Mentana. In this important
matter the Holy Father was not left to his own resources. The whole
Christian world was in sympathy with him, and anxious for his safety.
Volunteers from all Catholic countries hastened to Rome. Even remote
Canada, so early as 1868, had sent her three hundred. And these
mercenaries, as the enemy called them, served at their own expense. The
Bishops of Hungary furnished three squadrons of Hussars, who were all
mounted, equipped, and in every way supplied by Hungarian subscriptions.
The bishops and nobility of Galicia sent lancers. France, Belgium and
Catholic Germany, emulated one another in their efforts to maintain the
Pontifical force.

There was nothing warlike in thus providing against possible danger. So
long as France held Piedmont bound to treaty stipulations, any army in the
service of the Pope could only be employed as a police force in
maintaining internal peace, or in repelling such attempts as had recently
been made by the irregular bands of Garibaldi against the Pontifical
States.

Meanwhile, the arts of peace were not neglected. The Holy Father, as might
be supposed, when freed from the fear of invasion and expulsion from his
state, applied with renewed zeal to the duties of his sublime office. Nor
to these alone did he confine the exercise of his well-directed charity.
The agricultural school for children remains a lasting and solid proof of
his enlightened benevolence. This establishment is called, in honor of its
august founder, the Pio Vigneard (Pia Vigna). It is provided with all the
most improved implements, and is confided to the care of the Belgian
Brothers of Mercy. It is wholly maintained by the private funds of Pius
IX. It may be seen on an eminence to the left of the railway as you
approach the city of Rome.

ANNIVERSARY OF THE HOLY FATHER’S ORDINATION.

The anniversary of the elevation of Pius IX. to the Christian priesthood
happily occurred during this interval of peace. There was but one feeling
throughout the whole Christian world. The warmest expressions of love and
devotedness proceeded from every land. All the sovereigns of Europe
conveyed by autograph letters their dutiful congratulations, whilst the
joy of the people everywhere knew no bounds. At Rome the feast of the
golden wedding of Pius IX. lasted three days. Everywhere else, as it fell
on the Sunday of the Good Shepherd, it was celebrated in the churches, and
often in public places or on the mountains by illuminations or bonfires.
Under the name of handsel to Pius IX., the Catholic press opened
subscription lists. Notwithstanding the regular payment of Peter’s pence,
the public generosity was not exhausted.

One journal might be quoted, which alone collected more than one hundred
thousand francs. The Archbishop of Cologne, Monsigneur Melchers, observed,
in a pastoral instruction which he issued on the occasion, that never
before had a Pope been in such intimate and universal relation with the
heart of humanity. And indeed it was more consoling to the Supreme Pastor
than all other demonstrations to reflect that so many millions on millions
of faithful united with him in prayer at the Mass of the 11th of April,
all on the occasion participating in the Holy Communion. He felt that the
whole universe prayed with him and for him. “O God!” he exclaimed, in
presence of some pilgrims who had come to congratulate him in person, “O
God! have mercy on me! This is too much happiness! I dread when, ere long,
I shall appear before Thy judgment-seat, lest Thou say to me: Thou hast
had thy reward on earth! Not to me, but to Thee, O Lord! belongeth the
love of Christians.” He fully appreciated the numerous offerings and
congratulations of the Catholic world. His servants conceived the happy
idea of placing in symmetrical order throughout the apartments of the
Vatican the rich and numerous gifts which were presented to him on the
occasion of his jubilee. Beholding them, he exclaimed: “I also have my
universal exposition! It is the fruit not of my industry but of the love
of my children.” Then, as he turned over the leaves of the gigantic
manuscripts which were covered with addresses of devotedness, he added:
“This is the true expression of the universal Catholic suffrage.”

This auspicious time of peace and rejoicing was not without its sorrows.
Among these were the fearful massacres of Christians in China. Nor were
these the worst, for they carried with them their consolation. If the
Church was cruelly persecuted in China, she won new glory in adding
martyrs to the Triumphant army in heaven. The many scandals that occurred
throughout Christendom were more truly afflicting. Above all, were truly
trying to the paternal heart of the Holy Father those which happened among
the Catholic people, who protected him in the possession of what remained
of his dilapidated patrimony. A court and a political system which were
destined soon to disappear were laboring to put an end to Christian
education. The prince, cousin of the Emperor, Napoleon III., and the
Senator and Academician, Sainte Beuve, held heathenish orgies in the
Lenten season, even on Good Friday. To crown the list of evil, apostacy
was not wanting. It was of little consequence that one who fell away,
although a vehement declaimer, was a shallow theologian; his loss was,
nevertheless, to be deplored. The progress of a low sect in Belgium called
Solidaires, the success of a new revolution in Spain, under favor of which
the members of religious communities, both of men and of women, were
driven from their homes in the name of liberty, together with the opening
of revolutionary clubs in Paris, caused Pius IX. to dread catastrophes in
the near future. Severe domestic affliction came this year (1869) to
aggravate the sorrows of Pius IX. His brother, Count Gabriel Mastai, met
with an accident which, at his advanced age, ninety, proved to be serious.
The Holy Father, immediately traversing Rome, ascended on his knees the
_scala sancta_. A few days later the death of the patient was intimated to
him. He shut himself up several hours in his private apartment, in order
that none might witness the tears which grief made him shed. Finally, he
repaired to the Vatican Basilica, where he prayed for a long time, both
before the Holy Sacrament and at the tomb of the apostles.

AN EXERCISE OF SOVEREIGNTY.

Those states which formed the monetary division of Western Europe—France,
Belgium, Switzerland and the Holy See, agreed at this time to refound
their silver coinage. A model was chosen, which Greece, Portugal, Roumania
and some other countries adopted in their turn, and it was understood that
the new coinage for each state should be in proportion to its population.
Hence it behooved the Pontifical State to issue forty millions of livres
or thereby, for a population numbering from three to four millions of
souls, including Romagna and Umbria, which the Pope still claimed. The
Florence government remonstrated against the issue of forty million
livres, on the ground that the Pontiff could not now actually count more
than from 600,000 to 700,000 subjects. Napoleon III., always inclined to
gratify the revolution, summoned Pius IX. to suspend the issue of his
exaggerated coinage, three-fourths of which, it was insisted, should be
cast anew with the effigy of Victor Emmanuel. This interference of
Napoleon was considered inopportune and unacceptable, the operation of
coining being almost completed. Cardinal Antonelli maintained the right of
the Holy See. The French and Italian governments agreed to exclude from
their circulation, and consequently from that of the whole monetary union,
all silver coins which bore the meek and noble likeness of Pius IX. This
they did without offering to the public any explanation. The revolutionary
party, however, were too honest not to supply this want. They at once gave
circulation to the rumor that the coinage of the Pope was of inferior
quality. He was pointed out as a money-counterfeiter by the thousand
organs of the infidel press. The people, grossly deceived, repelled with
indignation, as if it were that of a robber, the likeness of the
representative of justice on earth. The Catholics, meanwhile, observed
with pain that while this storm of calumny was raging, one of their own
number, once a champion of the temporal power, held in the French
government the portfolio of finance. The Pontifical treasury subjected
itself to considerable sacrifices, in order to diminish the losses and
silence the recriminations of those who were compelled to stop its money,
which could no longer be circulated. Chemists, in the interest of truth,
analyzed the depreciated metal, and declared that it was exactly of the
same value as the coinage of Napoleon III. But neither the officious nor
the official press took the pains to publish this fact, and the calumny
remained. The time was even then at hand, as French writers observe with
pain, when France, in her downfallen and exhausted condition, would have
been glad to possess this Pontifical money and dispense with worthless
paper.

THE VATICAN COUNCIL—PURPOSE OF THE POPE IN CONVENING A GENERAL COUNCIL.

This time of sorrow, mourning and difficulty was succeeded by a period of
unwonted activity. It was deemed expedient to convoke an Œcumenical
Council. This important measure was thought of on occasion of the
centenary celebration of the martyrdom of SS. Peter and Paul. After two
years of serious and mature deliberation and consultation, Pius IX. issued
apostolical letters, convening a council of the whole church at the
Vatican Basilica. The 8th of December, 1869, was appointed as the day for
its first assembling. The objects in view cannot be better described than
in the words of the venerable Pontiff. After a few preliminary paragraphs
in his Bull of Indiction, the Holy Father thus proceeds:

“The Roman Pontiffs, in the discharge of the office divinely confided to
them in the person of Peter of feeding the entire flock of Christ, have
unweariedly taken on themselves the most arduous labors, and used every
possible means in order to have the various nations and races all over the
earth brought to the light of the Gospel, and by truth and holiness to
eternal life. All men know the zeal and unceasing vigilance with which
these same Roman Pontiffs have kept inviolate the deposit of faith,
discipline among the clergy, purity and science in the education given to
the members of the church, the holiness and dignity of Christian marriage:
how they studied day by day to promote the Christian education of the
youth of both sexes, to foster among all classes the love of religion, the
practice of piety and purity of morals as well as everything that might
conduce to the tranquillity, the good order and the prosperity of civil
society. Whenever great troubles arose, or serious calamities threatened
either the church or social order, the Roman Pontiffs judged it opportune
to convoke general councils, in order that with the advice and assistance
of the bishops of the Catholic world, whom the Holy Ghost hath established
to rule the Church of God, they might, in their united wisdom and
forethought, so dispose everything as to define the doctrines of faith, to
secure the destruction of the most prevalent errors, defend, illustrate
and develop Catholic teaching, restore and promote ecclesiastical
discipline and the reformation of morals.

“No one at the present time can be ignorant how terrible is the storm by
which the church is assailed, and what an accumulation of evils afflicts
civil society. The Catholic Church, her most salutary doctrines, her most
revered power, the supreme authority of this Holy See, are all assailed
and trampled on by the bitter enemies of God and man. All that is most
sacred is held up to contempt; ecclesiastical property is made the prey of
the spoiler; the most venerable ministers of the sacraments, men most
eminent for their Catholic character, are harassed by unheard of
annoyances. The religious orders are suppressed, impious books of every
kind and pestilential publications are disseminated, wicked and pernicious
societies are everywhere and under every form multiplied. The education of
youth is, in almost all countries, withdrawn from the clergy, and, what is
far worse, intrusted in many places to teachers of error and evil.

“In consequence of all these facts, to our great grief and that of all
good men, and to the irreparable ruin of souls, impiety, corruption of
morals, unbridled licentiousness, the contagion of depraved opinions, and
of every species of pestilential vice and crime, the violation of all
laws, human and divine, prevail everywhere to such an extent, that not
only religion but human society itself is thrown into the most deplorable
disorder and confusion.

“Wherefore, following in the footsteps of our illustrious predecessors, we
have deemed it opportune to call together a General Council, as we had
long desired to do.

“This Œcumenical Council will have to examine most diligently, and to
determine what it is most seasonable to do, in these calamitous times, for
the greatest glory of God, the integrity of faith, the splendor of Divine
worship, the eternal salvation of men, the discipline of the regular and
secular clergy, and their sound and solid education, the observance of
ecclesiastical laws, the reformation of morals, the Christian education of
youth, the common peace and universal concord. With the Divine assistance,
our labors must also be directed towards remedying the peculiar evils
which afflict church and state; towards bringing back into the right road
those who have strayed away from truth and righteousness; towards
repressing vice and error, in order that our holy religion and her saving
doctrines may acquire renewed vigor all over the earth, that its empire
may be restored and increased, and that thereby piety, modesty, honor,
justice, charity and all Christian virtues may wax strong and nourish for
the glory and happiness of our common humanity.”

It has been alleged and persistently maintained by the enemies of the Holy
See, that Pius IX. sought only to promote his own importance by convening
a General Council. Of this calumny the foregoing words, which so plainly
and distinctly set forth the purposes of the council, afford an abundant
refutation. No man holding a great public office can fulfil faithfully the
duties of that office without exalting his own character in the estimation
of mankind. Ought he then, because such things exalt him, to leave them
undone? This would, indeed, be mistaken humility.

Councils, although not an essential element in the government of the
church, are had recourse to in times of difficulty, in order to settle
doctrinal disputes, promote morality and establish or restore discipline.
With the exception of the Apostolic Council of Jerusalem, no council was
held for the first three hundred years of the church’s existence. The
church, nevertheless, as regarded her spiritual state, was highly
prosperous and extended rapidly. Councils came as exigencies arose, and
when there was no insuperable impediment to their assembling. They were in
their time a source of great and lasting good, whilst their record remains
shedding light on the centuries as they pass. There had already been
eighteen Œcumenical Councils, that of Trent, held three hundred years ago,
having been the last. Causes like to those which occasioned the earlier
councils, although in a different state of the world and human society,
appeared to call for such action on the part of the church as should
powerfully influence the passing age, and cause the light of Divine
revelation to penetrate the dark places of the nineteenth century. It was
resolved, accordingly, to convoke the Œcumenical Council of the age.

BISHOPS, ETC., BIDDEN TO THE COUNCIL.

It was the duty of the Commission of Direction to decide as to who had a
right to be called to, and to sit in, the council. This commission
consisted of five cardinals who were presidents, eight bishops and a
secretary, the Archbishop of Sardis. There was no difference of opinion. A
question, however, arose as to the right of vicars-apostolic to be invited
to the council. They were bishops, indeed, but without ordinary
jurisdiction. Hence the doubt as to their right to be called. Neither
their admissibility, if invited, nor of their decisive vote when admitted
was at all questioned. The precedents and practice of the Holy See were in
favor of their being called. It was also dreaded lest their exclusion
should give rise to questions as to the œcumenicity of the council. All
bishops, undoubtedly, were entitled to be invited. It was decided,
therefore, that bishops, vicars-apostolic, should be bidden to the
council. The Bulls by which former councils had been convoked called
together archbishops, bishops, etc. The law, therefore, making no
distinction between bishops in ordinary and such as were vicars-apostolic,
neither could the commission. _Ubi lex non distinguit nec nos distingnere
debemus_.

It was a far more serious matter to invite “the bishops of the Oriental
rite who are not in communion with the Apostolic See.” An earnest and
affectionate letter of invitation was addressed to them. It was presented
to the Patriarch of the “Orthodox” Greek Church, who did not consider it
worth while to open it. On the same day, it is related, four millions of
Bulgarians notified to this patriarch their withdrawal from his
jurisdiction. Many bishops of the Greek patriarchate were deeply moved by
the most kind and pressing appeal of the Holy Father. He had beseeched and
conjured them in the most earnest manner “to come to the general assembly
of the bishops of the West and of the whole world, as their fathers had
come to the second Council of Lyons and that of Florence, in order that,
renewing the charity which existed of old, and restoring the peace which
prevailed in the early ages, the fruits of which time has snatched from
us, we may behold at last the pure and bright dawn of that union which we
so ardently desire.” The separated bishops to whom these touching words
were addressed, appear to have been profoundly moved. A goodly number,
even, actuated by the paternal intentions of the Holy Father, were
strongly inclined to meet his advances; but so powerful was the example of
the Greek Patriarch of Constantinople, that none of them dared to take the
lead. The non-united Patriarch of Armenia replied that he would attend the
council. But he failed to do so.

A very considerate letter was also addressed to Protestants and all
non-Catholics. Needless to say it was not responded to. At the Council of
Trent the same attention was shown, but with an equally unsuccessful
result. Julius II. had published the condition on which alone
non-Catholics generally could be invited, viz.: that they should recognize
the Divine authority of the Church. It was not surely to be expected that,
on occasion of the meeting of a General Council, the Catholic Church
should abandon, in favor of a comparatively small number of dissenters,
her fundamental claim to Divine commission, which was acknowledged
throughout all Christendom. The bishops of the Anglican Church were
astonished and irritated on finding that they were invited only as other
Protestants, and not convoked along with the Fathers of the Council. Rome
thus plainly intimated to them that they have yet to prove their
consecration and right to episcopal dignity.

Rev. Dr. Cumming of London, a minister of the Scotch Presbyterian Church,
asked, through Archbishop Manning, to be allowed to lay before the council
such arguments as could be adduced in support of Protestant opinions. Pius
IX. caused the following reply to be sent to the learned minister: “The
decisions of former councils could not be shaken by bringing them anew
into question, and by discussing what had been already examined, judged
and condemned.” Two months later, 30th October, 1869, having been informed
that his words might have been misunderstood, and that certain Protestants
imagined that all access to the Holy See was henceforth closed against
them, the Holy Father, in a new Bull which he very considerately issued,
declared that: “Far from repelling any one, we, on the contrary, make
advances towards all. To those who, led astray by their education, believe
in the truth of their opinions, we, by no means, refuse the examination
and discussion of their arguments. This cannot be done within the council;
but there are not wanting learned theologians whom we shall designate to
them, and to whom they can open their minds. May there be many who, in all
sincerity, shall avail themselves of this facility! We earnestly pray that
the God of mercy may bring about this happy result.”

FATHERS WHO ATTENDED THE COUNCIL.

A statement of the number of Fathers who attended the council, at any
particular time during its celebration, can hardly convey an accurate idea
of the numbers who took part in its proceedings. Some were always arriving
and others departing. Some fell sick, and a few died. The number in
attendance, however, was always considerable. An official list, published
by the Apostolic Chamber, shows the number and quality of such as were
entitled to be present, and who could have attended except on account of
hindrances arising from sickness, age or impediments thrown in their way
by the governments under which they lived. These included 55 cardinals, 11
patriarchs, 7 primates, 159 archbishops, 755 bishops, 6 abbots, 22 mitred
abbots-general, 29 generals and vicars-general of orders; in all, 1,044. A
later official list of 1st May states the total number at 1,050, new
primatial, archiepiscopal and episcopal churches having been erected in
the meantime.

On the 8th December there were at Rome: 49 cardinals, 9 patriarchs, 4
primates, 123 archbishops, 481 bishops, 6 abbots, 22 abbots-general, 29
vicars and vicars-general of orders; in all, 723 Fathers. On 20th December
there were 743.

The following Bishops of England were in attendance at the council: The
Most Rev. Archbishop Manning, of Westminster; the Most Rev. Dr. Errington,
Archbishop of Trebizonde; the Right Rev. Dr. Grant, of Southwark; the
Right Rev. Dr. Cornthwaite, of Beverly; the Right Rev. Dr. Uullathorne, of
Birmingham; the Right Rev. Dr. Clifford, of Clifton; the Right Rev. Dr.
Chadwick, of Hexham; the Right Rev. Dr. Amherst, of Northampton; the Right
Rev. Dr. Roskell, of Nottingham; the Right Rev. Dr. Vaughan, of Plymouth;
the Right Rev. Dr. Turner, of Salford; the Right Rev. Dr. Brown, of
Shrewsbury.

There was a somewhat longer list of Irish bishops, viz.: His Eminence
Paul, Cardinal-Archbishop of Dublin; the Most Rev. Dr. McGettigan, Primate
of all Ireland, Archbishop of Armagh; the Most Rev. Dr. Leahy, Archbishop
of Cashel; the Most Rev. Dr. McHale, Archbishop of Tuam; the Right Rev.
Dr. Derry, of Clonfert; O’Keane, Fermoy; Kelly, Derry; Moriarty, Kerry;
Leahy, Dromore; Gillooly, Elphin; McEvilly, Galway; Furlong, Ferns; O’Hea,
Ross; Dorrian, Down and Connor; Butler, Limerick; Conaty, Kilmore; Nulty,
Meath; Donnelly, Clogher; Power, Killaloe; McCabe, Ardagh.

The hierarchy had not yet been restored in Scotland; so that country could
send only three bishops to the Œcumenical Council. These were the Right
Rev. John Strain, Vicar-Apostolic, Edinburgh (afterwards, in the restored
hierarchy, Most Rev. Archbishop of Saint Andrews and Edinburgh); the Most
Rev. Dr. Eyre, Archbishop, Glasgow; the Right Rev. Dr. McDonald (in the
restored hierarchy, Bishop of Aberdeen), Vicar-Apostolic, Preshome.

All the other civilized nations, with scarcely an exception,(7) sent their
bishops to the general assembly of the Church. France supplied the
greatest number, eighty-one. The kingdom of the Two Sicilies came next,
being represented by sixty-eight bishops. Next came the States of the
Church, sending sixty-two bishops. From Great Britain and Ireland, with
the colonies, including Canada, went fifty-five bishops to the great
council. Austria and Hungary were nobly represented by forty-three
bishops. Spain and the United States of America sent each forty prelates,
and the States of South America, thirty; whilst of the Oriental rites
there were forty-two bishops. Piedmont, Tuscany, Lombardy and Venetia,
together with Modena and Parma, Prussia, Bavaria, Mexico, Belgium,
Holland, Portugal, Switzerland, the Isles of Greece, and even the Turkish
empire, cheerfully willed that the Catholic prelates of their lands should
bear their part in the grand Œcumenical Council which was now about to
assemble. All these, with the cardinals, abbots, mitred abbots and
generals of religious orders, who were also members of the great assembly,
made up the goodly number which has already been adverted to.(8)

SUBJECTS WHICH IT WAS PROPOSED TO DISCUSS IN THE COUNCIL.

The subjects for discussion were expressed in _schemata_, or draft
decrees, which were drawn up by a “congregation,” or, as we should say, a
committee of one hundred and two ecclesiastics, who were cardinals and
others learned in theology and canon law, selected from many nations on
account of their superior wisdom and experience. By these alone the
_schemata_ were prepared. They bore not so much as the shadow of the
supreme authority. So the council was perfectly at liberty to accept or
reject, to change or to modify them, as it should deem fit and proper. Of
this we are assured by the words of the Pope, who, in his “Constitution,”
at the commencement of the council, informed the bishops that he had not
given any sanction to the _schemata_, and that consequently in regard to
them there was complete freedom.

The _schemata_, six in number, were very comprehensive. It is deeply to be
regretted that the council was not allowed time to discuss them all. They
concerned:


    1. Catholic doctrine in opposition to the manifold errors flowing
    from rationalism.

    2. The Church of Christ.

    3. The office of bishops.

    4. The vacancy of sees.

    5. The life and manners of the clergy.

    6. The Little Catechism.


The _schema_ on the Church of Christ necessarily involved the question of
infallibility. As this question, more than any other subject, appears to
have disturbed the equanimity of the outside world, it may not be
inappropriate to consider the preliminary labors, as regarded it, of the
great theological commission. The _schema_ on the Church of Christ
extended to fifteen chapters. Having treated, at length, on the body of
the church, the commission or committee of 102 theologians could not fail
to treat also of the Church’s Head. On this point they prepared two
chapters. The one spoke of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff, the other of
his temporal power. In treating of the primacy, its endowments also
necessarily came under discussion. Among these claimed the first place the
Divine assistance in matters of faith which was promised to Peter, and in
Peter to his successors. This is nothing less than infallibility.

On the 14th and 21st of January, the commission discussed the nature of
the primacy. On the 11th of February, it took up the question of
infallibility. It was enquired: 1st, whether the infallibility of the
Roman Pontiff can be defined as an article of faith; 2nd, whether it ought
to be so defined? The first question was answered unanimously in the
affirmative. To the second, all, with one exception, replied, expressing
concurrence in the judgment that the subject ought not to be proposed to
the council unless it were demanded by the bishops. The wording of the
judgment is as follows: _Sententia commissionis est, nonnisi ad
postulationem episcoporum rei hujus propositionem ab apostolica sede
faciendam esse._ (“The judgment of the commission is that this subject
ought not to be proposed by the Apostolic See, except at the petition of
the bishops.”) One member of the commission considered the discussion of
the subject inopportune. On account of his dissent, the chapter bearing on
infallibility was never completed.

Thus for a second time was the question of infallibility deliberately set
aside. As for Pius IX. himself, he had no desire any more than he had need
to propose that there should be a dogmatical definition. Even as his
predecessors in all preceding ages, he was conscious that his primacy was
complete. He had acted on this conviction, exercising his sublime
privilege with universal consent, in the face of all Christendom. In 1854,
1862 and 1867, the bishops had abundantly testified in his favor. If an
authoritative declaration was called for, it could only be on account of
the few who disputed and doubted, and the still smaller number who denied
that the Head of the Church on earth can neither err in faith and morals,
nor lead into error the church of which he is divinely constituted the
Supreme Teacher.

OPENING OF THE COUNCIL.

On the 7th of December, 1869—Vigil of the Immaculate Conception—Pius IX.,
attended by an imposing suite, repaired to the Church of the Twelve
Apostles, in order to inaugurate solemnly a period of nine days’ prayer in
honor of the Blessed and Immaculate Mary. The following day, at an early
hour, the cannon of the Castle of St. Angelo announced to the holy city
the great event that had been so long looked forward to. As early as six
o’clock a.m. the three naves of St. Peter’s were filled with a crowd of
the faithful, and all the approaches to the Basilica were thronged with
people. At nine o’clock was seen the magnificent procession of mitred
abbots, bishops and archbishops, primates, patriarchs and cardinals, that
preceded the _sedia gestatoria_ which bore the Pope. The sacred cortege
required about an hour to traverse the hall (atrium) and the chief nave of
St. Peter’s, and reach the left(9) arm of the cross which forms the
immense Basilica, and which had been set apart and prepared as a vast
chamber for the celebration of the council by that skilful architect,
Virginius Vespignani.

1,044 Fathers were invited to be present as members of the council. 803
attended at the opening. Of these there were six archbishops who were also
princes, forty-nine cardinals, eleven patriarchs, six hundred and eighty
archbishops and bishops, twenty-eight abbots, and twenty-nine generals of
religious orders. The entire number surpassed by one hundred and
thirty-five the united numbers of all the Fathers of Nice, Constantinople
and Ephesus. The day had gone by when the European sovereigns could be
bidden to an Œcumenical Council. Several of their representatives,
however, attended at the opening. The highest of the Roman nobility were
also present. The Colonna and Orsini families enjoyed the honor of being
princes attendant at the Papal throne on occasion of all the public
ceremonials of the council. Others of the Roman nobility, sovereigns and
princes, at the time in the city, were present. Among these were the
ex-King of Naples, the Empress of Austria, the ex-Duke and Duchess of
Tuscany, the ex-Duke and Duchess of Parma, together with the Doria and
Borghese families. Several foreign princes, General Kanzler,
commander-in-chief of the Papal forces, and General Dumont, who commanded
the French battalions in garrison at Rome, likewise attended.

The hymn, _Veni Creator_, was sung, and immediately thereafter the first
session of the Vatican Council was formally opened with the celebration of
High Mass. At the conclusion of mass, the secretary of the council placed
upon the altar the Book of the Gospels, which always remained open
throughout the session. The council then heard a sermon, and the Holy
Father intoned the Synodal prayers, which were followed by the Litany of
the Saints. Immediately after the chanting of the Gospel, Pius IX. made an
allocution to the following effect: “You are met, venerable brethren, in
the name of Jesus Christ, to bear witness with us to the word of God; to
declare with us to all men the truth, which is the way that leads to God;
and to condemn with us, under the guidance of the Holy Ghost, the
doctrines of false science. God is present in His holy place; He is with
our deliberations and our efforts; He has chosen us to be His servants and
fellow-workers in the great work of His salvation. Therefore, knowing well
our own weakness, and filled with mistrust of ourselves, we lift up our
eyes and our prayers to Thee, O Holy Ghost, to Thee the source of true
light and wisdom.”

The _Veni Creator_ having been once more sung, the Bishop of Fabriano read
from the _Ambo_ the decree ordaining the opening of the council. It was in
substance as follows: “Is it the pleasure of the Fathers that the
Œcumenical Council of the Vatican should be opened, and should be declared
open for the glory of the Most Holy Trinity, the custody and declaration
of the faith and of the Catholic religion; for the condemnation of errors
which are widely spreading, and the correction of clergy and people?” The
council replied unanimously _placet_. The Pope then declared the council
to be opened, and fixed the second public session for the feast of the
Epiphany, January 6, 1870. The session closed with the _Te Deum_ and the
Pontifical benediction. All the public sessions which were afterwards held
were opened pretty much in the same manner.

DEATH OF TWO DISTINGUISHED MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL.

At this time the council and the Catholic world had to bewail the death of
two very eminent Fathers. Cardinal de Reisach was a man of great and
varied learning, of large and refined culture of mind, and was fitted in a
special way to understand the diversities of thought which met in the
Vatican Council. His loss to the Holy See, great as it would have been at
any time, was more seriously felt at the meeting of the council, in
preparing for which he had borne a chief part. Cardinal de Reisach was not
only one of the foremost members of the Sacred College in the public
service of the church, but in private life he was greatly and deservedly
loved for his genial and sympathetic character.

The late illustrious Bishop of Southwark, the Right Rev. Thomas Grant,
whose zeal induced him to proceed to Rome in the height of a serious
illness, was also torn away from the cares of this life and the affection
of many friends, when, a little later, he was about to address a luminous
discourse to the assembled Fathers. Whilst he stood in the midst of them,
there occurred a crisis of his malady from which he never rallied. He was
visited on his deathbed, which was that of the faithful servant, by Pius
IX., who held him in the highest esteem.

THE SECOND SESSION.

Preparatory to the second session of the council, various commissions were
constituted. That of postulates or propositions was appointed by the Pope,
and consisted of cardinals who had experience, both as residents of Rome
and formerly as nuncios at foreign courts, together with archbishops and
bishops selected from each of the chief nations in the council. Its
members were twelve cardinals, two patriarchs—Antioch and Jerusalem—ten
archbishops, among whom was the Archbishop of Westminster, and two
bishops.

It was resolved that the other commissions should be elected by the
universal suffrage of the council. The Commission of Faith was elected in
the Third General Congregation, on the 20th of December. It was composed
of twenty-five members, among whom were remarked the successor of Fenelon
in the archiepiscopal see of Cambrai, the Archbishop of Westminster and
the Archbishop of Cashel (Ireland), three American bishops, Baltimore, San
Francisco, Rio Grande.

The Commission of Discipline consisted of twenty-four members, who
represented as many nations—the Bishop of Birmingham, on the part of
England.

The Commission on Religious Orders was also chosen; the Bishop of Clifton
representing England.

No more being necessary at the earlier sittings of the council, the
nomination of all other commissions was postponed.

SECOND PUBLIC SESSION—PROFESSION OF FAITH BY ALL THE MEMBERS OF THE
COUNCIL.

The second public session was held on the feast of the Epiphany, January
6th, 1870. It had been always customary at general councils to make a
profession of faith. This custom was not departed from at the Vatican
Council. As at Constantinople, A. D. 381, and Chalcedon, A. D. 481, was
recited the Creed of Nicea, and at subsequent councils was solemnly
professed the faith as expressed by those which had preceded them; so at
the Council of the Vatican were repeated the articles of Catholic belief,
as handed down through Trent and the more ancient councils. First of all,
the Holy Father, rising from his seat, read, in a distinct voice, the
definitions of the Council of Trent, known as the Creed of Pope Pius IV.
The same profession of faith was then read from the _Ambo_ by the Bishop
of Fabriano. As soon as he had done so, the other Fathers of the Council
expressed their adhesion by kissing the Gospel at the throne of the Chief
Pastor. Seven hundred bishops of the church, representing more than thirty
nations and about(10) three hundred millions of Christians, thus solemnly
professed, with one heart and mind, the same faith in the same form of
words. In this wonderful unanimity there is more than nature and
philosophy. Through all the changes of nearly nineteen hundred years, this
intellectual unity of faith, although minutely defined at Nicea,
Constantinople and Trent, has endured unchanged. We cannot but behold in
this immutability of Divine faith something far beyond the power of human
wisdom. It is surely providential that, in the face of so much unbelief,
such witness should have been borne to the unity and universality of the
Catholic faith.

And now closed the second public session of the Vatican Council.

THIRD SESSION.

Preparatory to the opening of the third public session of the council, the
_schema_ “on Catholic faith and on the errors springing from rationalism”
was discussed by thirty-five bishops in the general congregations, between
the 18th of December and the 10th of January. It contained eighteen
chapters, and was sent back to the Commission on Faith in order to be
completely remodeled. It was a grand theological document, and was cast in
the traditional form of conciliar decrees, taking its shape, as they did,
from the errors which it was intended to condemn. It was somewhat archaic,
perhaps, in language, but worthy to rank with the decrees of the Councils
of Toledo or of Lateran. Having been referred to the Commission on Faith,
it was again distributed to the council in its new form on the 14th of
March, wholly recast, and was received with general approbation. This new
document is quite of a distinct character, and not to be compared with the
_schema_ by which it was preceded. It contained, instead of eighteen
chapters, only an introduction and four chapters, in which every sentence
is full of condensed doctrine, the whole having impressed upon it a
singular beauty and splendor of Divine truth. The commission was engaged
in recasting this _schema_ until the end of February. Its subject-matter
was what may well be considered the first foundations of natural and
revealed religion, viz.: the existence and perfections of God, the
creation of the world, the powers and office of human reason, revelation,
faith, the relation of reason to faith and of faith to science. As a
consequence of these truths came the condemnation of atheism, materialism,
pantheism, naturalism and rationalism.

Whilst the non-Catholic world believed that the Pope and the Fathers of
the Council were bestowing all their care on one subject which happened to
be more prominently before the public, they were, on the contrary,
laboring with the greatest pains to elucidate every subject as it came up
for consideration. As has been seen, the most important _schema_ on
Catholic faith had been already very carefully discussed. On the 18th of
March a second discussion took place in the general congregation (or
committee of the whole council) on a report being made by the Primate of
Hungary. Nine bishops then discoursed on the text of the _schema_, after
which, no Father desiring to speak more upon it, the general discussion
ended. Each chapter in particular now came to be discussed. In the debate
on the first chapter sixteen Fathers took part; on the second, twenty; on
the third, twenty-two; on the fourth, twelve; in all, seventy-nine spoke.
This discussion occupied nine sittings, and only ended when no one desired
to speak any further. The amendments of the bishops were sent with the
_schema_ to the commission. As soon as they were printed and distributed
they were examined by the commission, when a full report was made in the
general congregation on the introduction, and the amendments were put to
the vote. The text of the introduction was then once more referred. Each
of the four chapters was treated in the same manner. To the first there
were forty-seven amendments, which, being printed and distributed, the
commission reported, and the amendments were put to the vote. Still
another revision, and the first chapter was adopted, almost unanimously,
on the 1st of April.

The second chapter had sixty-two amendments. Referring to the commission,
revising, reporting and voting followed, as in the case of the first
chapter, when the second was referred back for final amendment.

The third chapter had one hundred and twenty-two amendments. The same
process was followed, in regard to these amendments, as in the case of the
first and second chapters. The proceedings lasted two days.

The fourth chapter had fifty amendments, which were subjected to the same
process as those of the three first, and sent back to the commission. On
the same day, 8th April, the second chapter as amended was passed, and on
the 12th of April, the third and fourth, the former unanimously, the
latter almost so. When the whole was put to the vote, no _non placet_ was
given, whilst there were eighty-three _placets juxta modum_. The
amendments were all sent, as before, to the commission, and printed in a
quarto volume of fifty-one pages. The report was made on the 10th of
April, and on the same day the amended text was unanimously accepted. All
the time between the 14th of March and the 19th of April was consumed in
passing this first _schema_. Sixty-nine members of the council spoke.
Three hundred and sixty-four amendments were made, examined and voted
upon. Six reports were made by the commission upon the text, which, after
its first recasting, had been six times amended. The decree was finally
adopted unanimously by the assembled Fathers, all who were present, six
hundred and sixty-seven, voting in the third public session, on Low Sunday
(Dominica in Abbis), 24th April. This solemn vote of the council was
confirmed by the Pope, who, on the occasion, spoke as follows: “The
decrees and canons contained in the Constitution just read were accepted
by all the Fathers, no one dissenting; and we, the Sacred Council
approving, by our apostolical authority, so define and confirm them.”
Continuing, he addressed the Fathers of the Council: “You see, beloved
brethren, how good and pleasant it is to walk in the House of God in unity
and peace. As our Lord gave to His apostles, so I, His unworthy Vicar, in
His name, give peace to you. That peace, as you know, casts out fear; that
peace shuts the ear to unwise words. May that peace go with you in all the
days of your life; may that peace be with you in death; may that peace be
your everlasting joy in heaven.”

After much deliberation and painstaking, the third public session of the
council came to a close.

At less formal sittings was discussed the discipline relating to bishops.
On this subject thirty-seven Fathers discoursed in the council. Seven
sittings were employed in discussing discipline as concerns the clergy,
and thirty-seven Fathers spoke. Forty-one Fathers took part in discussing
the _schema_ on the Little Catechism. The discussion occupied six
sittings. There was no hurrying of matters in the council. None of the
discussions were closed until none of the Fathers desired further to be
heard. All the _schemata_, it is almost needless to say, having been
discussed, were referred to their respective commissions, in order to be
revised in accordance with the speeches and the written amendments of the
bishops.

Pius IX., meanwhile, was most anxious to aid and promote the labors of the
council. Notwithstanding the great increase of ecclesiastical business
occasioned by the presence in Rome of so many prelates, the affairs of
whose churches, as well as their own more personal matters, required no
small degree of attention, he followed, with unabated interest, every
stage of its proceedings, and caused a minute account to be given to him
every day of what was done in the various committees. These unwonted
cares, and the unusual amount of labor and fatigue which they entailed,
never induced him to omit any of those devotional offices with which he
was accustomed to renew and strengthen his soul. He would not hear of any
hurrying in the discussions on the first _schema_—that on faith, but, on
the contrary, gave due praise to the pains and labor bestowed by the
Fathers on every chapter, word and sentence. It was their object to secure
that complete accuracy and perfection of expression which could not fail
to prove eminently useful in all time to come. As has been already
remarked, the Fathers of the “Congregations” and “Commissions” labored
most assiduously in preparing, for the acceptance of the council, the
_schema_ on faith and doctrine. In the course of the six weeks that it was
under review, seventy-nine discourses were delivered, three hundred and
sixty-four amendments proposed, examined and voted upon, while six reports
were made upon the text of the _schema_, which had been six times amended.
The introduction, the four chapters and the eighteen canons, having
finally passed the council, were approved by the Holy Father, adopted and
promulgated as a Papal “Constitution,” which will be known in history as
the Constitution _Dei Filius_. It is a masterpiece of theological science,
and may be compared to priceless gems artistically arranged by skilful
hands in the richest settings.

It would be idle, indeed, to recount all the hard and absurd things that
have been said by the enemies of the council and the Catholic religion.
One of their accusations, if well founded, would be truly crushing. Some
scientists, who claim to be very profound, deem it necessary to abjure the
Catholic faith, because the Vatican Council has placed an impassable gulf
between religion and science, faith and reason. The council anticipated
and met this accusation which is so vigorously and persistently urged by
the false science of the day. Let us quote from its “Constitution:”
“Although faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy
between faith and reason, since the same God who reveals mysteries and
infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, and
cannot deny Himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth. The false
appearance of such a contradiction is mainly due, either to the dogmas of
faith not having been understood and expounded according to the mind of
the church, or to the inventions of opinion having been taken for the
verdicts of reason. And not only can faith and reason never be opposed to
one another, but they are of mutual aid the one to the other. For right
reason demonstrates the foundations of faith, and, enlightened by its
light, cultivates the science of things divine; while faith frees and
guards reason from errors, and furnishes it with manifold knowledge.

“So far, therefore, is the church from opposing the cultivation of human
arts and sciences, that it, in many ways, helps and promotes it. For the
Church neither ignores nor despises the benefits to human life which
result from the arts and sciences, but confesses that, as they came from
God, the Lord of all science, so, if they be rightly used, they lead to
God by the help of His grace. Nor does the Church forbid that each of
these sciences, in its sphere, should make use of its own principle and
its own method. But while recognizing this just liberty, it stands
watchfully on guard, lest the sciences, setting themselves against the
Divine teaching, or transgressing their own limits, should invade and
disturb the domain of faith.”

FOURTH PUBLIC SESSION.

There was only one point in the discussions on the Church of Christ in
which the outside world appeared to take an interest, and it is one which
the council did not at first contemplate taking into consideration. The
Fathers appear to have resolved to limit themselves, in treating of the
Church, and consequently of the Head of the Church on earth, to the
discussion of the primacy of the Supreme Pastor and of his temporalities.
The commission of one hundred and two cardinals, and other learned
theologians, had even set aside the question of infallibility when it came
before them, one of their number pronouncing a decision on it as
inopportune. A great majority of the bishops, however, were strongly of
opinion that in view of the outcry which had been raised on this point,
the opportunity of an Œcumenical Council being held should not be allowed
to pass without defining the belief of the Church in regard to the
unerring nature of the decisions, in matters of doctrine and morals, of
the successor of St. Peter. At their request, accordingly, it was ordered
that the important subject should be introduced in the eleventh chapter of
the _schema_ on the Church, and prepared in the usual way for the
consideration of the council. It could not be laid before the Fathers
sooner than the 18th of July, when the fourth solemn session was held. It
is proper to remark here that the doctrine in question was never
discussed, either in the congregations or committees of the whole council,
as to its Divine origin, or as to the fact of its having been revealed;
not one of the seven hundred members of the council expressed any doubt as
to this. There was no discussion except as to the opportuneness of
defining to be of faith what all believed to be so. The _schema_ having
passed through all the preparatory stages, finally assumed the form of a
“dogmatic constitution,” which will be known in history as the
Constitution, _Pastor æternus_, from the words with which it commences.
This Constitution was brought before the council at a solemn session, the
fourth and last which it held, the 18th July, 1870. The session was opened
with all the usual solemnities. The Pope himself presided in person. The
Mass of the Holy Ghost having been celebrated, the Sacred Scriptures were
placed upon the lectern on the high altar, and, as was customary, the
_Veni Creator_ was sung. The Bishop of Fabriano then read the
Constitution, or decree _de Romano Pontifice_, from the _Ambo_ (pulpit),
and the Fathers of the Council were invited to vote. Each Father,
accordingly, as his name was called, took off his mitre, rose from his
seat and voted. Of the five hundred and thirty-five who were present, five
hundred and thirty-three voted _placet_ (aye), whilst there were only two
nays. The secretary of the council, together with the scrutineers,
advanced to the Pontifical throne and declared the result. The Holy Father
then confirmed the decision in the usual form. He prayed, at the same
time, that they who had considered such a decision inopportune, at a time
of unusual agitation, might, in calmer days, unite with the great majority
of their brethren, and contend with them for the truth. The insertion here
of the allocution which he delivered on the occasion cannot but prove
acceptable to all English readers:


    “Great is the authority with which the Supreme Pontiff is
    invested. This authority, however, does not destroy. It builds up.
    It does not oppress. But, on the contrary, sustains. Very
    frequently it behooves it to defend the rights of our brethren,
    the bishops. If some have not been of the same mind with us, let
    them consider that they have formed their judgment under the
    influence of agitation. Let them bear in mind that the Lord is not
    in the storm (2 Kings, xix., 11). Let them remember that, a few
    years ago, they held the opposite opinion, and abounded in the
    same belief with us, and in that of this most august assembly, for
    then they judged in the untroubled air. Can two opposite
    consciences stand together in the same judgment? By no means.
    Therefore, we pray God that He who alone can work great things,
    may Himself enlighten their minds and hearts, that all may come to
    the bosom of their Father, the unworthy Vicar of Jesus Christ on
    earth, who loves them and desires to be one with them, and, united
    in the bond of charity, to fight with them the battle of the Lord.
    Thus shall our enemies not dare to deride us, but rather be awed,
    and at length lay down the arms of their warfare in the presence
    of truth; so that all may say, with St. Augustine: ‘Thou hast
    called me unto Thy wonderful light, and behold I see.’ ”


_Te Deum_ was now chanted, the Pope intoning the sublime hymn, and with
the Pontifical benediction, ended the fourth solemn public session of the
Vatican Council. With this council also ended all discussion within the
church on those questions in regard to which it pronounced
authoritatively. No doubt the enemies of the Catholic faith would have
been better pleased if there had been absolute unanimity when the final
vote was taken on the widely-discussed question of infallibility. Such a
coincidence would have afforded them a pretext, although, indeed, a
groundless one, for asserting that there was either collusion or
compulsion, whilst in reality there was complete liberty. The two Fathers
who voted, nay, constituting a minority of two, acted according to their
right, and it was not questioned. These Fathers were Monsignor Louis
Riccio, Bishop of Casazzio, in the kingdom of Naples, and the Right Rev,
Edward Fitzgerald, Bishop of Petricola (Little Rock, Arkansas), in the
United States of America. Immediately after the confirmation of the
“Constitution,” these two prelates, advancing to the Papal chair, solemnly
declared their adhesion to the act of the council. The four dissentient
cardinals—Rauscher, Schwarzenberg, Mathieu and Hohenlohe—who had left the
council when the fourth session was held, also, in their turn, expressed
their assent to the decision of the assembled Fathers. The opposing
bishops did in like manner. All of them, not excepting Strossmayer, Bishop
of Sirmium, who was the most eloquent orator of the minority in the
council, and who appeared to hesitate longer than the rest, ended by
promulgating all the decrees of the council in their respective dioceses.
This is more than could be said of Nicea, Chalcedon and Constantinople.
For the first time, no bishop persisted in resisting the decisions of an
Œcumenical Council. It was now acknowledged by the whole episcopate that
those measures were timely, wise and salutary, which the Church, ever
guided by the Spirit of God, had deemed it proper to adopt, but which so
many, awed by the spirit of unbelief which was abroad, had judged were
inopportune.

It may have been merely a coincidence. But there can be no doubt that
grandeur was added to a scene, in itself sufficiently imposing, when, as
on Sinai of old, lightning flashed and thunder pealed, as the Fathers of
the Council solemnly rose to give their final vote. “The _placets_ of the
Fathers,” writes the correspondent of the London _Times_ (Aug. 5, 1870),
“struggled through the storm while the thunder pealed above, and the
lightning flashed in at every window, and down through the dome and every
smaller cupola. ‘_Placet!_’ shouted his Eminence or his Grace, and a loud
clap of thunder followed in response, and then the lightning darted about
the Baldacchino and every part of the church and council-hall, as if
announcing the response. So it continued for nearly one hour and a half,
during which time the roll was being called, and a more effective scene I
never witnessed. Had all the decorators and all the getters-up of
ceremonies in Rome been employed, nothing approaching to the solemn
grandeur of the storm could have been prepared, and never will those who
saw it and felt it forget the promulgation of the first dogma of the
church.” Less friendly critics beheld, in this magnificent thunder-storm,
a distinct voice of Divine anger, condemning the important act of the
assembled Fathers. Had they forgotten Sinai and the Ten Commandments? All
of a sudden, as the last words were uttered, the tempest ceased; and, at
the moment when Pius IX. intoned the _Te Deum_, a sun-ray lighted up his
noble and expressive countenance. The voices of the Sixtine choristers,
who continued chanting the hymn, could not be heard. They were lost in the
united concert of the venerable Fathers and the vast assemblage.

COMPARATIVE IMPORTANCE OF THE VATICAN COUNCIL.

In whatever light we view the Council of the Vatican—the œcumenical of the
nineteenth century—it strikes us as being, in ecclesiastical annals, the
event of the age. It also marks, in a remarkable manner, the character and
progress of the time. The Council of Trent was highly important in its
day; and still, after a lapse of three hundred years, its teachings govern
the Church. Whilst, as regards the wisdom of its decisions, it cannot be
excelled, it was surpassed in many things by the Council of the Vatican.

Trent was attended by comparatively few bishops, who were from Europe, the
Eastern Church and the countries bordering on the Mediterranean. The
Vatican Council consisted of prelates from at least thirty different
nations, from the remotest regions of the habitable globe, from the
numerous churches in India which owed their origin to the apostolic zeal
of St. Francis Xavier, from North and South America, China, Australia, New
Zealand and Oceanica. One-fifth of the churches existed not as yet in the
time of Trent which sent their bishops to represent them at the Vatican
Council. The countries in which many of these churches flourish had no
place, when the Council of Trent was called, on the map of the world. From
those vast regions which now constitute the United States of America,
there was not so much as one bishop at Trent. At the Vatican Council there
were no fewer than sixty. There were never more than three bishops of
Ireland present together at Trent, and four only were members of that
council. Twenty Irish prelates attended the Vatican Council. England sent
only one bishop to Trent. He is mentioned as Godveus Anglus, Episc.
Asaphensis. The Catholics of England were represented by thirteen English
bishops at the Council of the Vatican. Scotland had no representation at
Trent. The Catholics of that country were most worthily represented at the
Vatican by Bishop Strain, now Archbishop of St. Andrews and Edinburgh;
Archbishop Eyre, of Glasgow, and Bishop McDonald, of Aberdeen. There was
only a very small number of English-speaking bishops at Trent. At the
Vatican Council they were particularly numerous, constituting, as nearly
as can be calculated, one-fifth of the assembled Catholic hierarchy. At
Trent there were not many bishops from countries speaking different
languages. Twenty-seven languages, and various dialects besides, were
represented by prelates at the Vatican.

The greater facilities for travelling, which this favored age enjoys, no
doubt rendered it more easy to attend the Council of the Vatican than it
was to journey to Trent, even from the nearest lands. Nevertheless, there
was laborious journeying to the Vatican. Prelates from the vast regions of
Asia and Africa, America and Australia, knew what they would have to
encounter, but they were not deterred. Some, on their way to the Vatican,
travelled for whole weeks mounted on camels before they could reach the
ports at which it behooved them to embark. Bishop Launy, of Santa Fe, was
forty-two days on his land-journey, and travelled on horseback. Such of
the laity as visited Trent were comparatively few, and only from places
not very distant. One hundred thousand pilgrims, many of them from the
most remote regions, repaired to the Vatican. The number of Fathers at any
one time in council at Trent was somewhat under three hundred. Seven
hundred and eighty-three took part in the Council of the Vatican. The
Council of Trent, however, must not be underrated. It was a most important
council, and admirably calculated to meet the wants of the time. It marked
an era in the history of the Church. It provided remedies for numerous
evils, and safety in the midst of danger. It became a power which time has
not diminished. For three hundred years it has guided the destinies of
Peter’s barque, prelates and people wisely accepting its discipline, and
meekly obeying its rule. It added, no doubt, to the importance of the
Vatican Council that it was held at Rome, in the very centre of
Catholicity and of Catholic unity, and near the tombs of the martyred
apostles, the founders of the Church. In this it contrasts with Trent,
which, although the Fathers assembled at an obscure village in the Tyrol,
was not less, on this account, an Œcumenical Council. Papal legates
presided at Trent, whilst the Holy Father himself was present at all the
solemn sessions of the Vatican Council which have as yet been held.

INFALLIBILITY.

There was no intention at first, as has been shown, of laying the question
of infallibility before the council. It happened, however, that a great
clamor, in regard to this question, came to prevail both within and
without the Church. The enemies of the doctrine railed so strongly against
it, and they who did not deny it declaimed so loudly against the
opportuneness of pronouncing any decision concerning it, that it was
positively forced upon the attention of the assembled Fathers. When,
therefore, they came to discuss the primacy and the temporalities of the
Sovereign Pontiff in connection with the Church of Christ, they hesitated
not to consider, at the same time, his immunity from error when speaking,
as Head of the Church and successor of Saint Peter, _ex cathedra_ on
matters of faith and morals. The learning of theologians and the ability
of orators were brought into requisition, and the fact came prominently
out that it had been according to the mind of the Church at all times,
that the Pope, the successor of St. Peter, is divinely assisted when
pronouncing solemnly _ex cathedra_ on questions of faith and morals. When
so pronouncing, the decisions of the Supreme Pastor have always been
accepted by the Church, whether dispersed or assembled in council. It is a
received belief among Christians that to every legitimate office is
attached a grace of vocation. Is it not, therefore, in accordance with
reason and Christian faith, that such grace should belong, and specially
to the highest and most important of all offices? Such grace or assistance
was promised to St. Peter, and through him to his successors, who are
appointed to bear witness throughout all time to the truths of Divine
revelation. For our blessed Lord declared, “I am with you all days.” He
could not better have secured the permanence of his religion—the kingdom
of God on earth, for the salvation of men in every age of the world. When
the Supreme Pastor speaks in the exercise of his sublime office, the
Church also speaks. The teaching and testimony of the Head of the Church
and of the great body of the Church are identical. They must always be in
harmony, as was so admirably shown by the decision of the council on
infallibility and the confirmation thereof by the Holy Father—_confirma
fratres tuous_—“confirm thy brethren.” Let not the opponents of the Church
and her salutary doctrines be carried away by the idea that a subservient
council wished only to glorify their spiritual Chief by ascribing to him
imaginary personal gifts. They were incapable of any such thing. They were
an assembly of the most venerable men in Christendom, who felt all the
weight of their responsibility to God and men in the exercise of their
sacred functions. Their decision has not altered the position of the
Supreme Pastor. Any writings or discourses which he may produce in his
merely personal or more private capacity are received by the Christian
world with that degree of consideration to which they are entitled on
account of the estimation in which he is held by men as a theologian and a
man of learning and ability. It is only when pronouncing solemnly _ex __
cathedra_, as the successor of St. Peter and the Head of the Church, on
questions of faith and morals, that he is universally believed to be
divinely assisted so as to be above the danger of erring, or of leading
into error—in other words (and we cannot help who may be offended), that
he is infallible.

FRANCO-PRUSSIAN WAR—WITHDRAWAL OF THE FRENCH GARRISON FROM
ROME—ADJOURNMENT OF THE COUNCIL.

Events were now at hand which made it impossible for the council to hold
another session. The French Emperor had greatly fallen, in the estimation
of the people of France, from the time of his shameful abandonment of the
chivalrous Maximilian and the popular design of establishing a Latin
empire on the continent of America. In order to make amends and regain his
_prestige_, he had revived the idea, so dear to the French, of rectifying
the Rhine frontier of France by resuming possession of Luxembourg and some
other adjacent provinces. He formally intimated his design to Prussia.
That Power, however, aware of its rights and conscious of its military
superiority, declined all negotiation on the subject. From that moment
Prussia held herself in readiness to repel, with the sword, if necessary,
any insolence that, in the future, might proceed from her aggressive
neighbor, for whose tottering throne war was a necessity. The candidature
of Prince Leopold of Hohenzollern for the throne of Spain now afforded a
pretext, which Napoleon III. was only too anxious to find, for provoking
by a fresh insult his powerful rival. It may be that he dreaded the
accession of strength which might eventually accrue to Prussia if the
crown of Spain were placed on the head of a Prince of the house of
Hohenzollern. Napoleon remonstrated, and threatened war. The youthful
German prince generously renounced a candidature which it was not hard to
see would lead to a rupture between the two Powers, and cause a
destructive war. The King of Prussia, head of the Hohenzollerns,
sanctioned, if he did not command, this act of moderation on the part of
the prince, his relative. But moderation was of no avail. Napoleon,
surrounded by a Jacobinical ministry, insisted upon war. The very idea of
proposing a German for the throne of Spain appeared to him to be a
sufficient cause for issuing a declaration of hostilities. The gauntlet
thus thrown down, the Prussian monarch was too chivalrous to decline the
challenge. He relied on his great military strength, and could afford to
despise the comparatively inferior preparations of the French Empire. With
the vast resources of France at his command, the Emperor, one would
suppose, might have managed, in the course of three years, to increase and
discipline his army, garrison his fortresses and seek alliances. He might
have taken more time if necessary. He had no need to precipitate events,
as he so recklessly did, by declaring war when there was positively no
preparation made for it. We shall presently see whether he were not one of
those whom Providence deprives of reason when it has resolved on their
destruction. In the absence of more effective preparations, the small
garrison at Rome of five thousand men was withdrawn in order to augment
the army which all France believed was destined to crush the formidable
Teuton and capture Berlin. If, however, this had been Napoleon’s only
object in recalling the troops, he could have accomplished it as easily by
ordering four thousand five hundred of the Roman garrison to join the
invading army, leaving the remaining five hundred to guard the city of the
Popes. This smaller number would surely have been as able as five thousand
to repel a Piedmontese force of sixty thousand men. But there was question
of more than mere physical power. So long as it was evident that France
protected the Papal city, whether by a greater or smaller number of
soldiers, the legions of Piedmont never would have marched against it.
Napoleon’s minister, M. de Gramont, revealed the pretext: “It is certainly
not from strategetical necessity that we evacuate the Roman States, but
the political urgency is obvious. We must conciliate the good-will of the
Italian Cabinet.” Much, indeed, it availed them.

Viterbo was evacuated on the 4th of August. The last remnant of French
troops embarked at Civita Vecchia, partly on the 4th and partly on the
6th, the very days on which the French army experienced its first reverses
at Weissemberg, Wœrth and Spikeren. Instead of hesitating to perform a
most cowardly act, which, viewing it only politically, proclaimed his
weakness to all Europe, the Emperor Napoleon made all haste to complete
it. He expressed regret. Who will say that he was sincere? Had he not
perfected the master-work of his reign—his grand transalpine scheme? The
Piedmontese minister, Visconti Venosta, gives a very distinct reply.
Writing to the Piedmontese representatives at foreign courts, this
minister says that as several governments had desired to know their views
in regard to the relation of passing events with the Roman question, his
government had no hesitation in making the clearest explanations. The
convention of 15th September, 1864, had not sufficed to avert the causes
arising abroad which hindered the settlement of the Roman difficulty. He
then accuses the Roman Court of having assumed a hostile attitude in the
centre of the peninsula, and that the consequences of such a position
might be serious for Piedmont on occasion of the Franco-Prussian war and
the complications to which it might give rise. Visconti Venosta further
states that the basis of a new and definite solution of the Roman question
had been confidentially recognized in principle, and was subject only to
the condition of opportunity.

It is no pleasure, surely, to convict the late Emperor of a deep-laid
conspiracy to revolutionize the Roman State, and rob the Holy Father of
his time-honored patrimony. But there is no escaping the conclusion that
he had never ceased to plot with the revolutionists. He was not yet
vanquished and fallen himself when he left the Sovereign Pontiff to his
enemies.

One of the chief calumnies of the time was directed by the revolutionists
against Pius IX. They accused the venerable Pontiff of encouraging the
Prussian monarch to wage war against France. The falsehood of this
accusation can only be equalled by its absurdity. The Holy Father, on the
contrary, earnestly endeavored, although in vain, before the commencement
of hostilities, to avert the dire calamity of war. So early as 22nd July,
1870, he interposed between the two rival sovereigns. “Sire,” he wrote to
the King of Prussia, “in the most serious circumstances in which we are
placed, it will appear to you unusual to receive a letter from me. But as
I hold the office of Vicar of the God of peace in this world, I cannot do
less than offer you my mediation. It is my desire that all preparations
for war should disappear, and that the evils which inevitably follow
should be prevented. My mediation is that of a sovereign who, in his
capacity of king, cannot, on account of the smallness of his territory,
excite any jealousy, but who, nevertheless, will inspire confidence by the
moral and religious influence which he personifies. May God hear my
prayers! and may He also accept those which I offer for your Majesty, with
whom I desire to be united in the common bond of charity.

Pius PP. IX.”

“I have written also to the Emperor of the French.”

The King of Prussia replied from Berlin on the 30th July. The kindly
monarch expressed himself beautifully and with the finest feeling: “Most
blessed Pontiff—I was not surprised but deeply moved when I read the
feeling words which you wrote, in order to cause the voice of the God of
peace to be heard. How could I be deaf to such a powerful appeal? God is
my witness that neither I nor my people have desired this war. In
fulfilment of the sacred duties which God lays on sovereigns and on
nations, we have drawn the sword in order to defend the independence and
honor of our country, and we are prepared to lay it down as soon as these
blessings shall no longer be in danger of being torn from us. If your
Holiness could offer me, on the part of him who has so unexpectedly
declared war, the assurance of sincerely pacific dispositions and of
guarantees against a renewal of such violation of the peace and
tranquillity of Europe, I certainly would be far from refusing to accept
them at the venerable hands of your Holiness, united as I am with you by
the bonds of Christian charity and true friendship. WILLIAM.”

The letter of Pius IX. to the French Emperor has not been published, and
it is not known whether Napoleon deigned to reply. One thing is certain.
He did not either accept the mediation or heed the remonstrances of the
Holy Father. He was equally deaf to the warnings of his old allies of
Crimean fame. The British government despatched to Paris a member of the
cabinet, who, in a prolonged interview with the demented Emperor, argued
earnestly on the part of Queen Victoria and her ministry against his
purposed violation of the peace of Europe by undertaking an unprovoked,
unjust and irrational war.

The war broke out. It was waged disastrously to the French. Pius IX. was
deeply grieved. “Poor France!” he exclaimed, as he heard of each new
defeat of the nation that he loved so well. He interposed once more. But
with the like ill success. Neither could the Germans be checked in their
victorious career, nor could the vanquished French be induced to
acknowledge their defeat and seek such terms of peace as might possibly
have been obtained. On 12th November, 1870, the Holy Father wrote to Mgr.
Guibert, Archbishop of Tours, in whose palace was resident a delegation of
the French government.

“Neglect nothing,” wrote the Pontiff, “we conjure you, in order to prevail
on your illustrious guests to put an end to this war. Nevertheless, we are
not unaware that it does not depend on them alone, and that we should
vainly pursue the great object of peace, if our pacific ministry did not
also meet with support on the part of the conqueror. So we have not
hesitated to write to this effect to his Majesty the King of Prussia. We
cannot, indeed, affirm anything as to the favorable result of the step
which we have taken. We have, nevertheless, some ground for hope, as this
monarch has in other circumstances shown us much good-will.”

Unfortunately, the bold men who had assumed supreme authority in France,
and had undertaken the difficult task of saving the country, were
incapable of accepting good advice, especially when it came from a Pope.
The King of Prussia and his minister, on the other hand, were of the
number of those whom victory intoxicates, and whom the power to dare
everything deprives of all sense of moderation. Pius IX. did not know them
as yet. The representations of Mgr. Guibert to Messrs. Cremieux, Glais
Bisoin and Gambetta, were not more successful than those of Mgr.
Ledochowski, Archbishop of Posen, who hastened to the presence of King
William at Versailles. The earnest endeavors of the archbishop met with
less consideration, to all appearance, at least, although it does not
appear that, on this occasion, William made any reply to Pius IX.

Notwithstanding these untoward circumstances, the Holy Pontiff never lost
confidence in the nation of Charlemagne and St. Louis. France, he said,
although sadly exhausted and bathed in blood, would yet show excellent
fruits.

The Piedmontese government, which had been for some time established at
Florence, now resolved to avail itself of the disasters of France to seize
the city of the Popes, and to constitute it the capital of regenerated
Italy. The minister, Visconti Venosta, in a circular letter, renewed his
calumnies, pretending that a hostile power existed in the centre of Italy,
and hypocritically declared that it had become necessary that the
government of his master should assume the protection of the Holy See.
They would not wait, he said, moreover, till the agitation at home should
lead to the effusion of blood between the Romans and foreign forces, but
would proceed, as soon as they could learn that the opportune time had
come, to occupy what remained to the Holy Father of the Roman States. The
information which the minister sought came with remarkable rapidity. The
day after the circular alluded to was written, another minister, Signor
Lanza, declared that the solemn moment had arrived when the government of
his king was called upon, in the interest of the Holy See and of Italy, to
take measures for the national safety. An envoy was despatched to Rome,
with a letter to the Pope, assuring him that the king’s government was
firmly resolved to give the necessary guarantees for the spiritual
independence of the Holy See, and that these guarantees would be hereafter
the subject of negotiations with the Powers that were interested in the
Papacy. In addition to this mockery of diplomacy, Victor Emmanuel himself
wrote to the Pope, expressing his filial devotedness, while at the same
time he was preparing, from an excess of affection, to bombard his city
and slay his defenders, to rob him from an excessive zeal for justice, to
imprison him in order to set him free, and, finally, that he ought to
allow all this to be done without complaint, and even thank the good king
who took so much care of him.

The Florentine Envoy, Signor Ponza di San Martino, when he came to Rome,
made his first visit to Cardinal Antonelli, who received him politely, and
did not refuse to ask for him an interview with the Pope. The cardinal,
however, declined to have any conversation with him on the object of his
mission. “I know already,” said he, “all that you could tell me. You are
also aware of the reply that I would give. Force, not argument, speaks at
present.” Pius IX. was more afflicted than surprised when he read King
Victor Emmanuel’s letter. He was particularly pained by the tone of this
document. “How the revolution has abased a Prince of the House of Savoy!
It is not satisfied with dethroning kings as often as it can, and with
committing their heads to the guillotine. It must also dishonor them.” The
envoy insisted that the king was sincere; that he was more convinced than
any other, that the independence of the Chief of the Church was a
necessity; and that he offered real and substantial guarantees to this
independence. “And who will guarantee these guarantees” asked the Pope.
“Your king cannot promise anything. He is no longer a king. He depends on
his parliament, which, in its turn, depends on the secret societies.” The
ambassador, more disconcerted than ever, remarked on the difficulties of
the time. He claimed, although timidly, that the king ought to be judged
according to his intentions, as at the time he was constrained by the
aspirations of four-and-twenty millions of Italians. “Your statement is
untrue, sir,” replied Pius IX. “You calumniate Italy! Of these
four-and-twenty millions, twenty-three millions are devoted to me, love
and respect me, and only require that the revolution leave them and me in
peace. The remaining million you have poisoned with false doctrines and
inspired with base passions. These unfortunate people are the friends of
your king and the instigators of his ambitious designs. When they have no
longer need of him they will cast him aside. My answer will be
communicated to you to-morrow. I am too much moved with grief and
indignation to be able to write at present.” Next day, accordingly, 11th
September, the following reply to Victor Emmanuel was conveyed to Signor
Ponza:

“SIRE,—Count Ponza di San Martino has handed me a letter which it has
pleased your Majesty to address to me. This letter is not worthy of an
affectionate son who glories in professing the Catholic faith, and who
prides himself on being royally loyal. I dwell not on the details
contained in the letter, in order to avoid renewing the pain which a first
reading of it gave me. I bless God, who has permitted that your Majesty
should overwhelm with bitterness the last years of my life. I cannot admit
the demands made in your letter, nor adopt the principles which it
contains. I call upon God anew, and commend to Him my cause, which is also
wholly His own. I beseech Him to bestow abundant graces on your Majesty,
to deliver you from all danger, and to grant you all the mercy which you
require.” This answer was not waited for. Victor Emmanuel made haste to
become the declared enemy of Pius IX. On 11th September, the Pontifical
territory was invaded by his orders at three different
points—Aquapendente, in the north: Orte and Correse, to the east; and on
the south, Ceprano. The invading army amounted to sixty thousand men.
After the withdrawal of the French garrison, there remained only at Rome
the few soldiers who constituted the army of the Pope. A great portion of
these were, to the lasting honor of a remote British dependency,
Canadians. They all deserved well of the Holy Father, and had imperilled
their lives in his service. On occasion of the great difficulty which had
arisen, accordingly, he was pleased to address to them in person special
words of comfort and encouragement.

It was evident that, in the adverse circumstances of the time, the Council
of the Vatican could not long continue its deliberations. Accordingly, the
Holy Father authorized such of the bishops as desired to retire to return
to their dioceses until the feast of St. Martin, 11th November following,
at which date it was intended to resume the labors of the council. It was
not, however, strictly speaking, suspended. Some general congregations
(committees) were still held, and the various deputations continued their
studies. During this time, the bishops of the minority, one after another,
expressed their adhesion. The bishops, on returning to their dioceses,
were received with magnificent proofs of the people’s fidelity. Some
parties pretending that the Constitution, _Pastor æternus_, was not
obligatory, because the council was not terminated, Cardinal Antonelli
addressed to the Papal Nuncio at Brussels a letter under date of 11th
August, which removed all doubt on the subject. The rapid march of events,
however, rendered it necessary to interrupt the labors of the assembled
Fathers. On 20th October, accordingly, Pius IX. published the Bull,
_Postquam Dei Munere_, which suspended them for an indefinite period.

THE WOLF IN THE FOLD.

When all the Pontifical forces had returned from the outposts, on the
approach of the formidable Piedmontese invader, and were concentrated at
Rome, they numbered not more than some ten thousand men. Such an army was
quite inadequate to cope with the superior power of the Florence
government. Pius IX., therefore, in order to prevent an unavailing
conflict, placed an order in the hands of his general-in-chief, to the
effect that as soon as sufficient resistance was made, in order to show
that violence was used against the Holy See, he should surrender the city.
This was a trial to the devoted Papal Zouaves, who, during the few moments
that fighting was allowed, conducted themselves in the most gallant style,
and kept the enemy at bay. Their bravery deserved a better fate than that
which befell them and the Roman State. Two lieutenants, Niel and Brondeis,
fell, pierced with wounds, exclaiming with their last breath, “Long live
Pius IX.!” A brave Alsacian fell by their side. A Canadian Zouave,
Hormisdas Sauvet, was also wounded, and declared that he was more
fortunate than so many of his fellow-countrymen who had been two years in
the Pontifical service without the slightest accident. Another Zouave,
whose name was Burel, when wounded in the mouth, and his tongue was
destroyed, made a sign that he wished to write. Paper was brought to him,
and he thus wrote his will: “I leave to the Holy Father all that I
possess.” He died the following day. The paper, all covered with blood,
was taken to Pius IX., who, in his turn, bedewed it with tears, and
desired to keep it as a memorial.

The Italian general Cadorna, an apostate priest, commenced bombarding Rome
at five points. At one of these, between the gates Pia and Salara, they
speedily effected a breach in an old wall about two feet in thickness, and
built of bricks and tufa. It may be conceived with what feelings the brave
Papal soldiers beheld the storming column enter the city, whilst they, in
obedience to orders, remained inactive spectators. They bore in silence
and without moving an arm the insults and even the violence of the fierce
soldiery of Piedmont. Finally, after a white flag had been displayed for
some time on the Pontifical side, almost in vain, General Kanzler had an
interview with Cadorna, at the Villa Albani. It can hardly be said that a
convention was resolved on. It would be more true to write that the terms
of the conqueror were imposed on the vanquished, and, as a matter of
necessity, accepted. The soldiers were better treated than in such
circumstances could well be expected. They were allowed to march out of
Rome with the honors of war, bearing with them their colors, arms and
baggage. When once out of the city, however, they were all obliged to lay
down their arms and their colors, with the exception of the officers, who
were permitted to retain their swords, their horses and everything that
belonged to them. Such soldiers as were foreigners were to be sent to
their respective homes by the Italian government. The future position of
the Pope’s native troops was to be taken into consideration. By the
articles of capitulation, it was settled that the Pope should be allowed
only the Vatican Palace and that part of Rome which is called the Leonine
city. Thus were carried into effect the views of those revolutionists of
Paris and Turin who claimed to be moderate. Their programme was that which
Prince Napoleon had concocted in 1861.

It is deeply to be regretted that when so little resistance was required,
so many of the Pope’s brave defenders should have fallen. Some were basely
murdered in the streets on the nights of the 20th and 21st September.
Without counting these, however, there were sixteen killed, of whom one
was an officer, and fifty-eight wounded. Among these last there were two
officers, two surgeons and a chaplain. The troops having been so hastily
dismissed to their foreign homes, to Civita Vecchia, etc., it is possible
that the list may be incomplete. The losses of the Piedmontese were never
made known. It is certain, at any rate, that one hundred wounded were
received at the hospital “de la Consolation” alone.

Whilst Pius IX. neglected not to warn, remonstrate and use every fair and
loyal art of diplomacy, he failed not, at the same time, to have recourse
to the spiritual weapon of prayer. As the enemy approached his gates, he
repaired to the Lateran Basilica, and there most earnestly addressed his
supplications to the God of armies. Notwithstanding his great age, he
ascended, on his knees, all the time absorbed in prayer, the twenty-nine
steps of the _Scala Santa_, which, at the Palace of Pontius Pilate, was
consecrated by the footsteps of our suffering Saviour. On reaching the
chapel at the head of the holy stair, he poured forth a prayer by which
all who heard it were deeply moved. He beseeched our blessed Lord, whose
humble servant and representative he was, to turn aside the wrath of
heaven, to prevent the profanation of the holy places, to save his people.
He conjured our most loving Saviour, by virtue of His passion, by the pain
especially which He suffered when spontaneously ascending that same stair
in order to undergo the mockery of judgment by His erring creatures, to
have mercy on afflicted Rome, on His people, on His Church—His
well-beloved and stainless spouse, to save her temples from desecration
and her children from the sword. “Pardon,” he concluded, “pardon my
people, who are also Thy people. If Thou desirest a victim, O God! take
Thy unworthy servant! Have I not lived long enough? Mercy! O God! have
mercy, I beseech Thee! But whatever may happen, Thy holy will be done!”

As was always the case when Pius IX. appeared among his people, he was
received on this occasion with every demonstration of welcome. As soon as
the inhabitants of the locality became aware of his presence, they
thronged around his carriage in order to do him honor, and, urged by the
circumstances of the time, with that freedom and familiarity of manner
peculiar to the Romans, they added to their acclamations and cordial
_vivats_ words of encouragement and even advice. “Defend yourself. Holy
Father! defend us! courage! courage!” A parting benediction, and he left
his people of Rome to be with them no more.

All the representatives of foreign States, with the exception of Von
Arnim, the Prussian Ambassador, remained with the Holy Father, protesting
by their presence against the flagrant violation of a solemn treaty which
the Florence government was committing. It is not known that Von Arnim was
instructed by his government to act as he did. But none are ignorant that
since that time it has dealt severely with him. The diplomatist who
rejoiced over the fall of Rome has himself incurred disgrace, and
undergoes the punishment of a banished man.

Pius IX., complimenting the ambassadors, called to mind how they had
afforded him much comfort on a similar occasion. This was in 1848, and at
the Quirinal Palace. He informed them also that he had written to King
Victor Emmanuel, but did not know whether he had received his letter. At
any rate, he had little hope that it would have any result. His mention of
the notorious Bixio, who was with the Italian army, was not without
significance. This rabid red republican had threatened that if ever he
entered Rome he would throw the Pope and cardinals into the Tiber. “His
ideas,” the Holy Father observed, “were now probably modified. He was with
a king. May it please Heaven to effect a complete transformation and
convert this Bixio and so many others.”

The students of the American College at Rome, the ambassadors were then
told, had offered to take up arms in the service of Pius IX. The Holy
Father would not allow them to serve otherwise than by attending to the
wounded.

“I wish I could say that I count on you,” said the Pope, addressing the
ambassadors, “and that one of you will have the honor, as formerly, to
extricate the Church and her Chief from difficulty. But the times are
changed. The aged Pope, in his misfortunes, cannot rely on any one in this
world. But the Church is immortal. Let this never be forgotten.”

General Kanzler now brought the intelligence that a breach was made, and
the assault on the point of commencing. The Pope having conferred a few
moments apart with Cardinal Antonelli, resumed his discourse: “I have just
given the order to capitulate. We might still defend ourselves. But to
what purpose? Abandoned by every one, I must yield sooner or later; and I
must not allow any useless shedding of blood. You are my witnesses,
gentlemen, that the foreigner enters here only by violence, and that if my
door is forced, it is by breaking it open. This the world shall know, and
history will tell it, one day, to the honor of the Romans, my children. I
speak not of myself, gentlemen; I weep not for myself, but for those
unfortunate young men who have come to defend me as their Father. You will
take care, each of you, of those of your country. There are some from all
countries. I recommend them all to you, in order that you may preserve
them from such maltreatment as others had to suffer ten years ago. I
absolve my soldiers from their oath of fidelity. I pray God to give me
strength and courage. Ah! it is not they who suffer injustice that are
most to be pitied.” Having thus spoken, he took leave of the ambassadors,
with tears in his eyes. On the same day, Cardinal Antonelli, by his order,
intimated the sad tidings to the governments of all civilized nations.
Pius IX. also protested by an allocution to the cardinals. It only remains
to chronicle the shameful violation of the treaty, which bound the French
nation to protect the Holy Father, by the government temporarily
established in France. “The September agreement,” wrote a representative
of the French republic, under the date of 22nd September, 1870, “virtually
ceases to exist by the proclamation of the French republic. I congratulate
the King of Italy, in the name of the French government and in my own
name, on the deliverance of Home and the final consecration of Italian
unity.” Thus was disgrace added to the misfortunes of a great country.

It was some time before order could be restored at Rome. From four
thousand to five thousand vagrants and bandits, chiefly Garibaldians,
entered the city at the heels of the invading force. The prisons were
thrown open, and swelled the ranks of these disorderly bands. During two
whole days that these lawless hordes were allowed to commit all kinds of
excesses, houses were fired, valuable property destroyed or carried off,
some eighty unoffending citizens put to death, and such of the Roman
soldiers as were recognized cut down or thrown into the Tiber. Nor was the
Italian general in any hurry to repress such proceedings. “_Lasciate il
popolo sfogarsir_,” coolly said Cadorna to the parties who entreated him
to put an end to such horrors. This general and the men with whom he acted
were only robbers on a greater scale. Their commissioners lost not a
moment. When tranquillity was somewhat restored, and complaints were made
against housebreakers, it was found that everything was already
confiscated—libraries, archives, colleges, museums, etc.

Victor Emmanuel had need of the mob which followed his troops. Anxious to
give a coloring of right to his brigandage, he resolved, according to the
fashion of his Imperial patron and accomplice, to hold a _plebiscitum_. In
the city of Rome, with the help of his numerous assemblage of vagrants, he
had forty thousand votes, whilst against him there were only forty-six.
Something similar was done in the landward part of the Roman State.
Better, surely, no right beyond what the sword could give, than such a
transparent semblance of right. No wonder that Victor Emmanuel’s best
friends condemned such an impolitic and ridiculous proceeding. None could
be so simple as to believe that there were only forty-six voters against
him, when all the numerous officials, both civil and military, protested
against his aggression by resigning their offices. It is bad enough when
men in authority play fantastic tricks. When the play is badly played, the
trickery becomes ridiculous.

It now remained to adhibit the seal of permanency to the _fait accompli_.
This was done by the following decree:


    Art. 1st. Rome and the Roman Provinces constitute an integral
    portion of the kingdom of Italy.

    Art. 2nd. The Sovereign Pontiff retains the dignity,
    inviolability, and all the prerogatives of a sovereign.

    Art. 3rd. A special law will sanction the conditions calculated to
    guarantee, even by territorial franchises, the independence of the
    Sovereign Pontiff and the free exercise of the spiritual authority
    of the Holy See.


Thus was sacrificed to Italian unity the city of the Popes. Was the
sacrifice essential? Florence might have well sufficed. It was of little
avail that the brigands who followed the Piedmontese army were compelled,
by superior power, to moderate their violence. Their robberies were, for
the most part, of a private nature, and committed on a small scale. Those
of their superiors—the Piedmontese usurpers—were grander and more
extensive. They astonished, if they did not terrify, by their magnitude
and the daring which achieved them. There were palaces at Rome and
soldiers’ quarters which had satisfied all the requirements of Papal
grandeur. These were nothing to the republican simplicity of the new order
of things. No doubt the parliament which had just arrived from Florence
required ample space. The costly equipages and hunting studs of a
constitutional king were also to be provided for. Could not all this have
been done, especially in such a vast city, without expropriating convents,
desecrating churches, and even seizing for their purposes the refuges of
the sick? It was more than an idea that required such spoliation. But what
shall we say when we call to mind that the mere desire to modernize
everything threatened the destruction of all those monuments which
rendered Rome so dear to travellers from every clime? It had been hitherto
the city of the Consuls, of the Emperors, of the Popes. It must now become
a commonplace town, with straight lines, rectangles and parallelograms,
like Philadelphia, New York, or the _Haussmanized_ Paris of Napoleon III.
The Royal Palace of the Popes, the Quirinal, was unscrupulously seized, in
order to make a city mansion for the King of Italy. It was too
magnificent, apparently, for this gentleman prince. He seldom entered it.
It may be that he dreaded offending the revolution, to which he owed so
much, by too great an affectation of royal style. If the gratitude of such
a heartless thing could be relied on, he had no need to fear. Without the
sword of Piedmont the revolution never could have entered Rome.

Meanwhile, the Pope was engaged in most anxious deliberation. At last,
considering the disturbed state of Europe generally, he concluded that it
was better for him to remain at Rome. A Pontifical ship, which had not
been included in the articles of capitulation, awaited his orders in the
waters of Civita Vecchia. This vessel was named the “Immaculate
Conception;” and two years later, by order of his Holiness, was laid up at
Toulon, under the protection of the flag of France. A French ship, the
“Orenoque,” was then placed at the disposal of Pius IX., in case he should
wish, at any time, to leave Rome: and later, the “Kleber,” which was
stationed in the waters of Bastia (Corsica).

The Holy Father had made up his mind so early as the first days of
September, 1870, to remain in the city. His presence, he felt confident,
would so far prevent the evils which he feared. If he were gone, there
would be less restraint on the usurping power, when it might wish to
confiscate more convents, churches and church property generally. Almost
all the foreign ambassadors remained with him; and this circumstance
presented another cause why the new government would be more moderate and
circumspect in its attacks on property.

A beautiful legend which the Holy Father recounted, at an interview with
Cardinal De Bonnechose, was well calculated to reconcile the Catholic
world to the stay of Pius IX. at Rome, even although he was there as a
prisoner of the victorious king. And a prisoner he really was; for he
could not have removed to any other country except by a successful
stratagem, so closely guarded were all the approaches to the city by the
myrmidons of the conqueror. Taking the cardinal aside, he informed him
that he wished to present him with a memorial. “The object in itself is of
little value. The intention with which I give it is all its worth.” It was
a small plate of ivory, framed in gold, surmounted by the arms of the Holy
See, and representing in the most exquisite manner a moving scene in the
life of St. Peter. “You behold the subject of my frequent meditations for
many years. When the prince of the apostles, fleeing from persecution,
quitted Rome, he met, not far from the gate of Saint Sebastian, our Lord
Himself, carrying His cross and looking extraordinarily sad: ‘_Domine quo
radis?_’ ‘Lord, where are you going?’ exclaimed Peter. ‘I am going to
Rome,’ replied our blessed Lord, ‘In order to be there crucified anew to
die in your place, as your courage has failed you.’ ” “Peter understood,”
continued the Holy Father, “and remained at Rome. I also remain. For if,
at this moment, I left the eternal city, it would seem to me as if our
Lord addressed to me the same words of reproach. The representation of
this scene I am anxious to leave with you as a memorial. It may, in
reality, be nothing more than a pious legend. But for me it in a decisive
instruction.” Pius IX. then delivered the precious medallion to the
cardinal.

GUARANTEES WHICH GUARANTEED NOTHING—£120,000 WITH WHICH NOTHING WAS
PAID—PETER’S PENCE WHICH PAID EVERYTHING.

In order to give a coloring to his usurpation in the eyes of Christian
Europe, and to set at rest any scruples which may have remained in the
minds of his adherents, Victor Emmanuel caused a law to be enacted on the
13th March, 1871, which is known as _the law of guarantees_. This law
declared the person of the Sovereign Pontiff sacred and inviolable,
recognized his title and dignity of sovereign, assured to him an annual
endowment of 3,225,000 francs (£120,000), together with the possession of
the Vatican and Lateran Palaces, as well as the Pontifical Villa of Castel
Gandolfo, and provided for the complete liberty of all future Conclaves
and Œcumenical Councils. It requires two parties to every contract or
agreement. _The law of guarantees_ had no such condition, the Holy Father
not being a party to it. He could not accept the honors which the new
government pretended to confer, nor the money which it offered. It was not
a government by any other law than that of the sword—that of a war not
only undertaken against the unoffending, but also in violation of a solemn
treaty. Neither was the treasure which it proffered its rightful property.
It held it, indeed; but only as the robber holds the purse of his victim,
whilst he mocks him by an offer of alms. It was also the merest mockery to
pretend to recognize the Pope as a sovereign, whilst, in reality, he was
detained as a prisoner, who could not pass beyond the gate of his garden
without coming into the custody of the armed police or soldiery of the
usurper, By the provisions of this same law of guarantees, full liberty
was secured to the Sovereign Pontiff in the exercise of his spiritual
office. The persecutions to which the ministers of the Church were
frequently subjected, when they dared to obey the orders of the Pope in
fulfilling the duties of his and their ministry, show to what extent the
framers of the law were sincere. It need only be added, without further
comment, that article eighteen confiscated, by anticipation, all
ecclesiastical properties, under the pretence that they were to be
reorganized, preserved and administered. No wonder that the Pope
stigmatized such a law as hypocritical and iniquitous. In the supposition
that he could have derived any benefit from accepting it, he would still
have been at the mercy of a fickle king and parliament, to whom it was
competent, at any moment, to change the law which they had made. The
safety of the Holy Father, under Heaven, lay in this, that the newly
erected kingdom of Victor Emmanuel was most ambitious to figure as a State
among the States of Europe. To none of these would it have been pleasing
to see the venerable Pontiff forcibly driven from the city of the Popes.
It was necessary, as far as possible, to blindfold them.

“I have, indeed, great need of money.” said Pius IX., when the sum
appropriated by the law of guarantees was first presented for his
acceptance; “my children, everywhere, impose on themselves the most
serious sacrifices in order to supply my wants, at all times so great, but
to which you are daily adding. As it is a portion of the property that has
been stolen from me, I could only accept it as restitution money. I will
never sign a receipt which would appear to express my acquiescence in the
robbery.” Every succeeding year the form, or rather the farce, of offering
the subsidy was renewed and as often rejected. That the offer of so large
a sum was hypocritical, and intended only for show, is well proved by the
circumstance that the liberal Italian government deprived of their incomes
and drove from their places of residence many bishops, whose wants were
supplied in their great distress from the resources of the Holy Father.

Love is stronger than hate; and so well-beloved was Pius IX. throughout
Catholic Christendom, that contributions of money from every country where
there were any Catholics were poured into his treasury, in such abundance
as more than compensated for the loss of his Italian revenue. Not only
were these contributions, under the name of Peter’s pence, sufficient to
maintain the venerable Pontiff during the remainder of his days, without
its being necessary to accept, as a royal benefaction, any portion of the
property that was stolen from him, they also sufficed to enable him to
continue their salaries to his former employees, who had almost all
remained faithful, as well as to those still required for his service and
for transacting the business of the Church. In addition to this, he
retained on half or quarter pay a number of the soldiers of his former
army, and maintained his establishment of Vigna Pia, together with the
hospital of Tata Giovanni, from which the new Roman municipality had
meanly withdrawn the subsidy, for no other reason than that in former
times it had been a favorite institution of Pius IX. This was not all. The
Holy Pontiff maintained, by means of popular schools, a necessary warfare
against both Protestant and Atheistic propagandism. The former had been
very active ever since the occupation of Rome by the Piedmontese. The
various Protestant societies actually spent £100,000 yearly in the vain
attempt to Protestantize the Romans. By 1st January, 1875, they had
erected three churches and founded twelve missionary residences in the
interest of divers denominations—Anglicans, Methodists, American
Episcopalians, Vaudois, Baptists, Anabaptists, etc. The Italians have
little taste for Protestantism in any of its forms. So there was no danger
of discordant and jarring sects coming to prevail. It cannot be denied,
however, that the movement increased the number of free-thinkers—a result
no less calculated to afflict tho Holy Father.

When to these expenses are added those of sustaining the Sacred College,
the prelature, the guards, the museums, and bishops that were exiled for
the faith, there is shown a monthly expenditure of more than six hundred
thousand francs, which is equal to seven millions and a half yearly. These
expenses always increased as the elder bishops passed away. Pius IX.
appointed successors. But as none of these could, in conscience, ask the
royal _exequatur_, which, notwithstanding article sixteen of the notorious
guarantees, was still in force, Victor Emmanuel had no hesitation in
suppressing the revenues of the bishops. Pius IX. sent to the bishops who
were thus deprived of their legitimate incomes five hundred francs
monthly, and to archbishops from seven hundred to one thousand francs. He
also labored to establish foundations for the education of ecclesiastical
students whom a revolutionary and anti-Christian law made subject to
military service, thus rendering morally impossible the following out of
clerical vocations and the recruiting of the priesthood. From this and
such like proceedings, it can easily be seen that the revolutionary
_regime_, and the Italian government was nothing less, aimed at the
extirpation of Christianity, and that civilization, the only possible
civilization which follows in its train.

Misfortune, meanwhile, was not neglected by the Holy Pontiff. He sent
vestments to the churches of Paris which had been pillaged by the Commune.
He provided, habitually, in like manner, for the churches of poor and
remote missions. In July, 1875, he sent twenty thousand francs to the
people who had suffered by inundations in the southwest of France, and
five thousand francs to such as had similarly suffered at Brescia, in
Upper Italy. He bestowed, likewise, large sums for the rebuilding of
churches—for instance, eight hundred francs for this pious purpose to the
Bishop of Sarsina, and two thousand to the Bishop of Osimo. Charitable
institutions were not overlooked, and the Princess Rospigliosi Champigny
de Cadore received fifty thousand francs towards the support of the house
of St. Mary Magdalen, the object of which was the preservation of young
women in the city of Rome.

As regarded works of art or of public utility, the venerable Pontiff was
no less munificent. He completed the restoration of the Church of Saint
Ange in Peschiera, together with the magnificent contiguous portico called
Octavia, and rebuilt the altar with the marbles found by Visconti in the
emporium of the Emperors. The tomb of his illustrious predecessor Gregory
VII., at Salerno, having become dilapidated, he undertook to restore it at
his own cost, and renewed the fine epitaph which Pope Gregory himself had
caused to be engraved on the sepulchral stone; _Dileri justitiam et odici
iniquitatem, et ecce in exilio mortor_. (I loved righteousness and hated
iniquity, and lo! I die in exile.)

Quite a number of people were employed in the manufacture of mosaics at
the Vatican. On this the Romans justly prided themselves. Pius IX.
continued to employ these artists, and, as in former times, presented
their works to his guests or to the churches of Italy. If he was not still
a king, he retained, at least, a truly royal prerogative—that of
conferring gifts in every way worthy of royalty. Nothing could exceed the
delicacy and graciousness with which he did so. Of this the two Russian
Grand Dukes, brothers of the reigning Emperor, were witnesses, when he
made a present to them of a splendid table, in mosaic, which they were
observed to admire among the more humble furniture of his apartment. The
funds must have been, indeed, abundant which could meet so many demands.
Although despoiled of his revenues and property, the Holy Father was a
richer monarch than the prince who robbed him. So liberally were Peter’s
pence bestowed and so economically managed, that Pius IX. was able to
invest money for the benefit of his successor, although not to such an
extent as to render the collection of Peter’s pence in the future
unnecessary.

It has long been customary, on occasion of the august ceremony of the
coronation of the Popes, to address to them, with due solemnity, the
words: _Annos Petri tu non ridebis_. (Thou wilt not see the years of
Peter.) It is related that one of the Popes thus replied to the ominous
address: _Non est de fide_. (That is no article of faith.) Pius IX.,
however, was the first who showed that the words were not strictly
prophetic. His Pontificate was prolonged beyond the years of Peter at
Rome. Already, on the 10th of June, 1871, when he was enabled to celebrate
the twenty-fifth anniversary of his election to the Pontifical chair, he
had enjoyed more than the years of Peter. The great apostle, it will be
remembered, spent two years after our Lord’s ascension in preaching the
Gospel at Jerusalem and throughout Judea. After this, Antioch, at the time
the capital of the Eastern world, became the scene of his apostolic
labors. He was bishop there for seven years when he established the
central seat of Christendom at Rome, the metropolis of the known world.
The apostle remained there till his martyrdom under Nero, A. D. 67. Thus,
Peter was Pope thirty-four years or so, whilst he was Bishop of Rome only
twenty-five years and some days. A festival at Rome could not now be held
with the wonted circumstance of outward religious pomp. The remarkable
anniversary was not, however, less devoutly observed at the Basilicas of
St. Peter and St. John Lateran. These immense edifices were crowded with
people of all classes and of every age. Nor in this did the Romans stand
alone. Prayers and communions were offered up in every diocese of the
world, supplicating Heaven for a continuation of the years which had been
already so auspiciously granted to the venerable Pontiff. More than a
thousand congratulatory messages were flashed along the telegraph lines.
All the sovereigns of Europe, with scarcely an exception, paid their
dutiful compliments to Pius IX.; the telegram of Queen Victoria being the
first that reached him. From the New World as well as from the Old there
came numerous deputations. One day, in replying to them, the Holy Father
delivered no fewer than twelve discourses in Latin, French, Spanish and
Italian. To many of the addresses was appended a singularly great number
of signatures. The Bishop of Nevers presented one with two millions of
names.

A few days later, 20th September, the Holy Father had to lament the death
of his brother, Count Gaetano Mastai. So little, however, was his grief
respected by Victor Emmanuel and his government, that their cannon were
heard booming joyously in honor of the violent occupation of the city. All
Rome was indignant. Patrician and plebeian, all citizens alike, hastened
to the Vatican, protesting and presenting addresses of condolence. The
_Riforma_ (a Roman journal) said, on the occasion: “After two years’
sojourn Italy was still as much a stranger as on the first day, so that
there was no appearance of friendliness, but rather of a city that still
groaned under a military occupation, which it bore with the greatest
impatience.”

MORE SPOLIATION AND DESECRATION—NO RECONCILIATION.

Robbery, wholesale and sacrilegious, was now the order of the day at Rome.
Throughout the city convents were closed and sequestrated, libraries were
confiscated, and often dilapidated in transferring them from one place to
another. Religious men and religious women were driven from their homes
and brutally searched on their thresholds lest they should carry away with
them anything that belonged to them. These religious people obtained,
every month, as indemnification, twenty-five centimes each daily, and the
aged forty centimes; but they were paid only when the treasury was in a
condition to pay them, and this was not the case every month. The poor and
the infirm, no longer sustained by Catholic charity, encumbered the
hospitals or were associated with the knights of industry, who swarmed
from the prisons of Italy. It was in vain that the police were doubled.
Robberies increased in the same proportion. The people in such
circumstances could not but ask themselves what sacrifices were laid upon
himself by the usurping king, who was now the master of the domains of six
Italian princes who had never allowed their subjects to go without bread.
Before the end of the year 1873, the number of religious houses that were
taken, in whole or in part, from their legitimate proprietors, was over
one hundred. The intervention of diplomacy saved for a time the Roman
College, which was essentially international and not Roman, as formerly no
clerks of the city of Rome could attend it, and as it was endowed solely
by foreign kings and benefactors. The Italian government consented, not,
indeed, to renounce, but only to stay this new spoliation. It claimed all
the more credit for its pretended moderation, as it secretly caused the
newspapers in its interest to instigate it to listen to no terms. By means
of its gensd’armes and its police force, it was master of the secret
societies, and allowed them to raise a cry without allowing them to act,
whilst it chose its own time for the execution of its wicked purposes.

Pius IX. was deeply grieved when beholding so many evil deeds which he
could not prevent. His sorrow found expression in one of his allocutions,
that of 1st January, 1873:

“You are come,” said he, to parties who had come to compliment him on New
Years day, “from divers distant lands in order to offer me your
congratulations and wish me a happy new year. The past year, alas! is far
from having been a happy one. Society is astray in evil courses. There are
people who think that peace prevails at Rome, and that matters are not so
bad there as is said. Some strangers, on arriving in the city, even ask
for cards of admission to religious ceremonies. I am persuaded that this
year also the same request will be made as regards the celebrations of
holy week. So long as the present state of things continues, alas! there
can be no such celebrations. The Church is in mourning. Rome has lost its
character of capital of the Christian world—so many horrible deeds are
done, so many blasphemies uttered. Let us beseech the Lord to put an end
to such a painful state of things.”

Victor Emmanuel, notwithstanding his extraordinary proceedings, appears to
have thought that there might be a reconciliation with the Pope. The
Emperor of Brazil, a man of science and a celebrated traveller, then at
Rome, accepted the office of mediator. One morning, in the year 1872, the
Brazilian monarch repaired to the Vatican. The hour of his visit was
inopportune, as its object also proved to be. It was seven o’clock in the
morning. The Holy Father had not yet finished his Mass when the Emperor
was announced. As soon as was possible his Holiness proceeded to receive
him. Whether fearing some design, or from dislike only to meet a prince
who came from the hostile usurper’s court, Pius IX., with an unusual
coldness of manner, addressed the Emperor: “What does your Majesty
desire?” “I beg your Holiness will not call me Majesty. Here, I am only
the Count of Alcantara.” The Holy Father then, without showing the least
emotion, said to him: “My dear Count, what do you desire?” “I am come,
your Holiness, in order to ask that you will allow me to introduce to you
the King of Italy.” At these words the Pontiff rose from his seat, and,
looking indignantly at the Emperor, said to him with much firmness: “It is
quite useless to hold such language. Let the King of Piedmont abjure his
misdeeds and restore to me my States. I will then consent to receive him.
But not till then.”

CREATION OF CARDINALS—AUDIENCES AND ALLOCUTIONS—THE POPE REALLY A
PRISONER—THE PRINCE OF WALES—ENGLAND—IRELAND.

A creation of cardinals was necessary. There were twenty-nine vacant hats.
Towards the close of 1873 Pius IX. resolved on twelve new creations. One
of these became the occasion of protesting anew against the Italian
government. The Society of Jesuits had always been a special object of its
hatred. They were the first whom it expelled from Rome, as has been the
case in more than one persecution. And now they were robbed,
notwithstanding the hopes that the European ambassadors were led to
entertain of the Roman College which was their property. The Holy Father
met this new brigandage by raising a member of the society to the dignity
of cardinal. Tarquini, professor of canon law at the Sapienza (Roman
College), was the favored member. Thus did the despoiled Pontiff condemn
the ignorance and rebuke the robbery of the new rulers of Rome. “I am
aware,” said Pius IX. on this occasion, “that the Jesuits do not willingly
accept ecclesiastical dignities. I had not, therefore, thought, until now,
of conferring the purple on any of their members. But the unjust acts from
which your society is suffering at this moment have determined me. It
appeared to me to be necessary that I should make known in this way what I
think of the ignorant calumnies of which you are the victims, and at the
same time give proof to yourself and your brethren of my esteem and
friendship.”

If, ever since the violent seizure of Rome, it was customary to speak of
the Pope as “the prisoner of the Vatican,” his enemies, on the other hand,
ceased not to insist that he was perfectly free, whilst he obstinately
persisted in remaining within the walls of his palace. It has been noticed
already that every approach to Rome and the Vatican was strictly guarded
by the soldiers of the usurping king. A circumstance which occurred on the
evening of the 20th June, 1874, further showed how close the imprisonment
was. It was the twenty-eighth anniversary of the coronation of Pius IX.
_Te Deum_ was celebrated in the Vatican Basilica, and, what rarely
happens, the spacious edifice was completely filled. More than one hundred
thousand people, as nearly as could be estimated, or two-thirds of all the
Romans who were able to leave their houses, were massed as well within the
church as on the places St. Peter and Risticucci. When _Te Deum_ was over,
all eyes instinctively turned towards a window of the second story of the
palace. It was the window of the Pope’s apartment. Suddenly a white figure
appeared at this window, and immediately a cry arose from below. It was
the voice of the Roman citizens; a voice so grand that it might be said to
express the mind of a whole people, as they saluted their king, who was a
prisoner. It continued for some time, and, although the window was at once
closed, the prolonged acclamation of the faithful Romans rose louder and
louder, until the Piedmontese troops came on the ground and swept away the
crowd. The people departed without making any resistance. The police,
nevertheless, arrested some twelve persons, of whom six were ladies of the
best society of Rome. These ladies were at once set at liberty. But four
young men of the number of those arrested were detained and afterwards
condemned, one of them to two years, and the rest to several months’
imprisonment, for having cried, “Long live the Pontiff-King.” This crime
they pretended not to deny. Could it be doubted any longer that the Pope
was a prisoner? It was not only on moral grounds that he could not leave
the Vatican. There were also bayonets and fire-arms between him and the
nearest streets of Rome. It was only in the beginning of the year 1875
that Pius IX. could no longer refrain from visiting the Basilica of St.
Peter. He had not been within it for four years and a half. Every
necessary precaution was observed on occasion of his visit. The gates of
the temple were kept shut, and none were present but members of the
chapter and some other persons required for the service of the Church. The
Holy Father entered by the stair which forms direct communication between
his palace and the holy place. As may well be understood, he prayed for
some time with his accustomed earnestness, that it would please God to put
an end to the evils by which the Church was so sorely afflicted.

Pius IX. was indefatigable in giving audiences and receiving deputations
from every country where there were members of the Catholic Church. On
such occasions he never failed to speak words of edification and
encouragement. It was even said that he spoke too much. They were not,
however, of the number of his friends who call him _il Papa verboso_. He
was endowed with a wonderful gift of speech, and he always used it
effectively. His discourses were invariably to the purpose, the subject of
them being suggested by the most recent events, by the nationality of his
visitors, or by the expressed pious intentions which brought them to his
presence. He made allusion very often to the Gospel of the preceding
Sunday, or to the festival of the day, and concluded by imparting his
benediction, which his hearers always received kneeling, and seldom
without tears. The addresses of Pius IX. delivered at the Vatican have
been preserved by the stenographic art, and fill many volumes. His ideas
sometimes found expression in conversations with distinguished visitors.
Such was the case on occasion of the visit, in 1872, of the Prince of
Wales, the heir apparent of the British Crown. His Royal Highness showed
his good taste by declining the use of Victor Emmanuel’s equipages in
coming to the Vatican. The Princess also made manifest her respect for the
well-known sentiments of Pius IX. in regard to showy toilettes by
appearing in a plain dress. There was a striking contrast between the
placid old man, so near the close of his career, and the handsome young
couple, in the flower of their age. The Prince and the Pope appeared
delighted at meeting; and the eyes of the Princess, who looked alternately
at the animated figure of her husband and the benevolent countenance of
the venerable Pontiff, were suffused with tears. The Pope began the
conversation by expressing his great admiration for the character, both
public and private, of the Queen of Great Britain; and smiling
expressively, and not without a slight degree of Italian irony, he thanked
the British ministers who, more than once, had offered him, in the name of
the Queen, an asylum on British territory. “You see, Prince, I have not
left Rome quite as soon as some of your statesmen supposed I would.” The
Holy Father then alluded to the existing state of things, adding: “In my
present condition I am assuredly more happy than those who consider
themselves more the masters of Rome than myself. I have no fear for my
dynasty. It is powerfully protected. God Himself is its guardian. He also
looks to my succession and my family. You are not unaware that these are
no other than the Church. I can speak without offence to the Prince of
Wales of the instability of Royal Houses, that which he represents being
firmly anchored in the affections of a wise people.” “I am delighted,”
replied the Prince, smiling expressively, “to find that your Holiness has
so good an opinion of our people.” “Yes, indeed, I respect the English
people,” continued the Holy Father, “because they are more truly
religious, both as regards feeling and conduct, than many who call
themselves Catholics. When, one day, they shall return to the fold, with
what joy will we not welcome that flock which is astray, but not lost!”
The Prince and Princess, being rather incredulous, received this
benevolent aspiration with a good-natured smile. “Oh! my children,”
resumed the Pontiff, “the future has in store for mankind the most strange
surprises. Who could have imagined, two years ago, that we should see a
Prussian army in France? I hesitate not to say that your ablest statesmen
expected sooner to see the Pope at Malta than Napoleon III. in England. As
regards myself, you will observe I am, indeed, robbed of my States, but
God, who, at any moment, withdraws the possessions of this world, can also
restore them a hundred-fold. Is the dynasty of the Head of the Church, on
this account, less secure? I may, for a time, be driven from Rome. But
when your children and grandchildren shall come to visit the holy city,
they will see, as you see to-day—let the temporal power be more or less
considerable—an old man, clothed in white, pointing the way to heaven for
the good of hundreds of millions of human consciences. To compensate for
the absence of subjects immediately around him, he will have devoted
adherents at all times and everywhere.” The conversation turning on
Ireland, the Holy Father spoke in the warmest terms of the fidelity of the
Catholics of that country. “You know, Prince, the results of persecution.
It does not make us any more Catholics. Your Royal Mother follows a policy
quite different from that of her predecessors, in regard to Ireland, and
you are, like her, aware that good Catholics are always good subjects.”
That country, the Pope continued to observe, had need of the vigilant and
energetic superintendence of its devoted prelates, whom he praised in the
highest terms. “For,” said he, “the wolf—I do not mean Protestantism—but
the wolf of anarchy and infidelity is abroad, I fear, in the regions of
the West.” He referred to the organization called “the International,” and
expressed his astonishment that “any princes should be still so blind as
to take pleasure in making war on the Church, at a period when the
foundations of civil society were threatened on every side.”

The chief cause of the Holy Father’s grief and poignant sorrow, under his
calamities, was the loss of souls. “Ah!” said he, in a conversation with
Mgr. Langenieux, Archbishop of Rheims, “I could bear my misfortunes
courageously, and God would give me strength to withstand the evils which
afflict the Church. But there is one thing I cannot forgive those who
persecute us. They eradicate the faith of my people—they kill the souls of
the children of unfortunate Italy.” The Pontiff, as he uttered these
words, moved his hand towards his breast, and as his fingers ruffled his
white robe, he exclaimed, in a tone that was truly heartrending: “They
tear away my heart!”

“It was sublime,” adds the archbishop, “the great soul of the Pope subdued
us, and, at the same time, inspired us with light and fortitude.”

RELATIONS OF PIUS IX. WITH FOREIGN STATES—SWITZERLAND—GERMANY.

The party in Europe who desired the suppression of the Pope’s temporal
rule professed to be actuated by zeal for promoting a more free and useful
exercise of his spiritual authority. It soon became manifest that this was
the merest sham. Switzerland, guided by that narrow kind of Protestantism
which has so often asserted its power, pretended to see only in the Pope
the Chief of the small Roman State; when deprived of that State, he was no
longer a prince or dignitary, with whom diplomatic relations could be
held. His legate at Berne, accordingly, was informed that he must take his
departure from the territory of the Swiss Confederation. It is well
understood that this ungracious measure was secretly advised and promoted
by Germany. That Power speedily followed the example, although not at
first in a very direct or open way. The German ministry appointed to the
Embassy of the Vatican Cardinal Hohenlohe, the only one of the cardinals
who proved unfaithful to Pius IX. in the hour of his great distress. The
Pope remonstrated against the appointment. The inflexible Prussian
minister, Bismarck, replied that he would send no other, suspended and
finally abolished diplomatic relations between the new Empire and the Holy
See. It is by no means matter for surprise that a man of Prince Bismarck’s
views and character should have so acted, or even that he should have
become the promoter of the greatest and most unwarrantable persecution by
which any nation has been disgraced, or to which any portion of the Church
has been subjected in modern times. This minister, who may be truly
described as the political scourge of Germany, is as fanatical in religion
as he is coarse and sceptical in politics. He abandoned his party, and
became, or feigned to become, a liberal in order to gratify his hatred of
the Catholic Church. He belongs to that branch of Protestantism which is
called “orthodox” (_lucus a non lucendo_). On occasion of the debate, 14th
April, 1874, on the law which withdrew the salaries of the Catholic
clergy, a Protestant conservative member of the representative body, Count
de Malrahn, declared that he would vote for this law, because it would
affect only the Catholics, without interfering with the rights of the
Evangelical denomination. Bismarck, by his reply, not only showed an utter
absence of all political faith, but at the same time a degree of political
hypocrisy with which all true history will never cease to stigmatize him.
“I must express the great joy which I experience on hearing the
declaration of the preceding speaker. If, at the commencement of the
religious conflict, the conservatives had taken this ground, and sustained
the government in the name of the Evangelical religion, I never would have
been under the necessity of separating from the Conservative party.”

From Chancellor Bismarck’s own words, therefore, it may be concluded that
it was excessive sectarian fanaticism which made him an infidel and
hypocrite in politics, a traitor to his party, and a savage persecutor of
the Church. When there was question in December, 1874, of obtaining an act
for the suppression of the Prussian legation to the Holy See, the
deep-rooted hatred of Prince Bismarck and his absolute want of conscience
became still more apparent. He audaciously accused the Court of Rome of
having been the ally of France, and even of the revolution in the war
against Prussia in 1870. He pretended that if the Œcumenical Council was
closed abruptly, it was in order to leave complete liberty of action to
Napoleon III.; and, as facts were necessary in order to support this
extraordinary and false assertion, he ascribed to Monsignor Meglia, at the
time nuncio at Munich, the words, “Our only hope is in the revolution.” As
the chancellor uttered this odious calumny, he suddenly took ill. He
became pale, stammered, and had recourse, four or five times, to a glass
of water, which was beside him, in order to recover his spirits and find
the words which he should use. The whole parliament was struck with this
incident. The Abbe Majunke, editor of the Catholic journal _Germania_,
was, however, the only one who spoke of it publicly. Such an offence
against the omnipotent chancellor could not, of course, be overlooked. M.
Majunke was summoned to the police office, and thence consigned to prison,
notwithstanding his inviolability as deputy, and the protestations of the
_Reichstag_ (parliament). What a grand conception Chancellor Bismarck must
have had of constitutional government!

The great success of William I. in the Franco-Prussian war appears to have
so elated that monarch that he considered there was nothing which he might
not successfully undertake. He had annexed to Prussia some of the lesser
States of Germany, and made a German Empire. The Church in Germany enjoyed
many privileges and immunities under his predecessors, who, for the most
part, were, like himself, Protestants. Whether it was that he desired to
show himself a better Protestant than his ancestors, or that he could not
emancipate himself from the control of the minister who had so long
guided, with singular success, the destinies of the empire, as well as his
own career, or that he believed it to be a political necessity to act
according to the views and carry out the principles of the German and
European “Liberals”—the party of revolution and unbelief—he resolved to
oppose no impediment to his chancellor and the liberal majority of
parliament in their endeavors to destroy the Catholic Church in Germany,
unless it chose to become as a mere department of the State, acting and
speaking in the name of the State, receiving its appointments from the
State, as well as the funds requisite for the support of its ministers,
accepting all its orders and instructions, even in the most spiritual
things, from the State; in fine, looking to the State as the sole source
of all its authority, honor, power and influence. There was nothing like
the German Empire. It had conquered in gigantic wars with two Powers that
were considered the greatest in continental Europe. It had attained a
degree of power and greatness, scarcely if at all inferior to that of the
first Napoleon, and, like Napoleon, it aimed at more. It sought, like him,
to have the Church, no less than the police courts, in every respect, in
all circumstances and on all occasions, completely at its orders. This
ill-judged ambition accounts for the long list of oppressive laws which
were enacted at Berlin for the enslavement of the Catholic Church. They
are known as the “May Laws,” all of them having been passed, although not
in the same year, in the month of May. Dollinger, Hohenlohe and the rest
of the anti-Catholic Bavarian _coterie_, deluded the Emperor and his
minister with the idea of an independent German _alt_, or Old Catholic
Church. They sold their country to the new empire, politically. But they
could not sell its church. One of these _alt-Catholics_, Dr. Schulte,
recommended persecution as the surest means of eradicating the ancient
church. “Let his twenty thousand florins be withdrawn from such a one, his
twelve thousand thalers from such another; let the salaries of the bishops
and chapters be suppressed, and the result will soon be manifest. The
humbler clergy will rejoice. Since 18th July, 1870, there has been neither
belief in Christ nor religious conviction among the bearers of mitres and
tonsures.” Thus was the Prussian minister led to imagine that he had only
to transfer the benefices of the Catholic dignitaries to the
_alt-Catholics_ in order to constitute an independent German Church, which
would unite the whole of Germany religiously, as he had already united it
politically. All Catholics, of course, would be members of this new
Church. The State Protestantism of Prussia would, in due time, join this
State Church, and there would be, if not one Faith and one Baptism, one
Church and one State.

The calculations of Chancellor Bismarck were, however, at fault. He soon
discovered that the clergy were grossly calumniated, and that the
_alt-Catholic_ Church in which he trusted never counted more than thirty
priests; that this number increased not, and that the hundreds of
thousands of adherents of whom the pseudo bishop, Reinkens, boasted, were
only some twenty thousand to thirty thousand, scattered over all Germany.
These had no principle of cohesion. They could not agree as to any
fundamental point of religious doctrine or discipline. According to a
census made in 1876, they numbered only one hundred and thirty-six, in a
population of twenty-five thousand Catholics, at the city of Bonn, which
M. Reinkens had selected as the seat and centre of his episcopal
ministrations. Meanwhile, there was a considerable reaction in
prevaricating Bavaria. The Catholic minority was changed into a majority,
and the Prussian Catholic representation, which was called the fraction of
the centre, was strengthened at the elections of 1874 by an increase from
twenty-five to forty votes. The chancellor, although enlightened, was not
corrected. Nothing could divert him from his evil purpose. By a strange
confusion of ideas, he called _Kulturcampf_ (struggle for civilization)
the open war which he waged against the Church, the source of all
civilization and of liberty of conscience. The persecuting laws which,
with the aid of the so-called “liberal” party, or party of unbelief, he
succeeded in causing to be enacted were to the following effect. As was to
be expected of the blind political fanaticism of the party, the Jesuits
were the first objects of hostility, and the first victims of persecution.
The May laws required that these unoffending individuals should be
expelled without any form of trial, and deprived of their rights of
citizens. At the same time, certain religious orders which, it was
pretended, were affiliated with the Jesuits, were subjected to the like
treatment.

All ecclesiastical seminaries were suppressed, the solons of legislation
pretending that it was necessary to oblige the candidates for the
priesthood to imbue their minds in lay schools, with the ideas and wants
of modern society.

The new laws abolished articles fifteen, sixteen and eighteen of the
Prussian Constitution, which guaranteed the autonomy of the different
forms of worship; they bestowed on the State the nomination to
ecclesiastical functions, and went so far as to forbid bishops the use of
their right to declare apostates excluded from the Catholic communion.

They suppressed the subsidies and allowances which the State, until that
time, paid to the diocesan establishments and the clergy generally,
notwithstanding that such subsidies were not gratuitously bestowed by the
government, but were nothing else than, as in France and Belgium, the
restitution, in part, of the debt due by the State to the Church. It was
provided, however, that such members of the clergy as should make their
submission should at once have their salaries restored. By a refinement of
cruelty, all collections and subscriptions, whether public or private, for
the requirements of public worship and the support of the clergy were
forbidden, and elective lay commissions were charged with the management
of all ecclesiastical property. Finally, all religious orders, as well of
men as of women, were suppressed, with the exception, and that
provisionally only, of such as were devoted to the care of the sick.

If Chancellor Bismarck really believed, at any time, that the Catholic
clergy were without faith and conscience, ready to submit to any terms the
State might impose, in order to save their incomes and the institutions of
the Church, he must have been greatly surprised when he found them all,
without exception, prepared to welcome poverty, imprisonment and exile,
rather than abandon the inalienable rights of conscience. On the 26th May,
1873, the Bishops of Prussia signed a collective declaration, in which
they stated, with regret, that it was impossible for them to obey. “The
Church,” said they, “cannot acknowledge the heathen state principle,
according to which the laws of the State are the source of all right, and
the Church possesses only such rights as it pleases the State to grant. By
so doing, it would deny its own Divine origin, and would make Christianity
wholly dependent on the arbitrary will of men.” In regard to temporal
matters connected with the Church they could afford to be less strict: and
so they authorized their people to take part in the election of the new
lay managers of the properties of the churches. This wise policy was
attended with the most happy results. The chancellor’s plans were
everywhere completely marred. He had reckoned that the Catholics would
abstain from voting, and so allow a “liberal” (infidel) minority, however
small, to dispose of the churches and presbyteries.

In reviewing the news of the day, we have been accustomed to think of only
one or two more eminent prelates suffering under the lash of persecution.
The truth is, that the whole Church suffered. The persecution was as cruel
as an age which does not permit the shedding of blood would tolerate. The
bishops were crushed with fines on account of each act which they
performed of their spiritual office. Such fines they refused to pay, lest
they should acknowledge the justice of their condemnation. Their movable
property, accordingly, was seized and sold at auction, and they themselves
were immured in the prisons, where they were mixed up with felons
condemned to the same labors, and designated, like them, by numbers. It
was all in vain. Nothing could shake their constancy. At Berlin was
erected a sort of ecclesiastical tribunal, which arrogated to itself the
power of deposing from sees, and which actually pretended to depose the
Archbishop of Posen, the Bishop of Paderborn, the Prince-Bishop of
Breslau, and several other prelates. The fortresses of Germany were filled
with priests, whose only crime was that they _obeyed God rather than men_.
The public ways were crowded with priests who had been deprived,
afterwards _interned_, and finally banished. Numerous religious people,
both men and women, were in the like sad position, thronging the road of
exile. The people, in tears, escorted these victims of heathenish rage.
They chanted, as they went, the psalm, “_Miserere_,” and the canticle,
“_Wir sind ini waren Christenthum_” (“we are in true Christianity”), until
they reached the railway depots. The Prussian gensd’armes, who were often
no more than two or three in number, were astonished to find that they
could so easily conduct their prisoners, whom thousands and tens of
thousands of other men, the greater number of whom were veteran soldiers,
accompanied, as they passed, expressing their regrets and good wishes.

Persecution is impolitic no less than it is cruel and immoral. The German
people, to say the least, were shocked by the tyranny of their government.
Nothing could prevent them from showing what they felt and thought, on
occasion of the release of the prisoners at the end of their two years’
term of imprisonment. They took every possible means of expressing their
satisfaction. Thus, at Munster, when Bishop Warendorf returned, the
inhabitants paid no attention to the prohibition of the burgomaster, who,
by order of the government, intimated that he would repress, by force,
every external and public demonstration. The whole city rushed to the
gate, St. Mauritius, by which the released prisoner was to enter. Count
Droste-Erhdroste proceeded to receive him in a magnificent carriage, drawn
by four horses, which was followed by four more carriages in charge of his
servants, who were in complete gala dress. An immense crowd strewed
flowers along the route as the bishop advanced, and ceased not to hail him
with joyous acclamations until he reached his residence, where the first
families of the country were in attendance to receive him. In the evening,
the whole town, with the exception of the public buildings, was
illuminated. The citizens of Posen were preparing a like triumphal
reception for their archbishop, Cardinal Ledochowski, on occasion of his
release in February, 1876, from the fortress of Ostrowo, where he had been
incarcerated for two years, when he was carried off in the nighttime and
transported beyond the limits of his diocese, in which he is forbidden
ever again to set foot. Two suffragan bishops were left behind. They also
were imprisoned at Gnesten, one for having administered the Sacrament of
Confirmation without special leave from the government, the other for
having consecrated the holy oils on Maunday Thursday, 1875. By such acts,
which evidently belonged to the spiritual order, they were held to be
guilty of sedition and a violation of the rights of the State.

The whole Catholic world was deeply moved by this modern and unprovoked
persecution. All could not speak, indeed; but all were in sympathy with
the clergy and faithful people of Germany. The bishops of France would
have brought war upon their country by uttering a word of disapproval. The
irascible chancellor actually sought to raise a quarrel with that country
on account of a slight and inoffensive allusion which fell from the lips
of two of the bishops. Could he not see that he will be branded throughout
the ages as a persecutor and a short-sighted politician? Great Britain and
America could speak without fear or hindrance. And they were not slow to
send their words of consolation and encouragement to their suffering
brethren of Germany. The Cardinal-Archbishop of Westminster wrote in a
strain which may be described as apostolical, to the Archbishop of
Cologne, the Primate of Germany, greeting “with the greatest affection
both himself and his brethren, the other bishops who are in prison for
having defended the authority and liberty of the Church.” This letter was
reproduced by all the newspapers, and could not have escaped the notice of
the Prussian minister. Nevertheless, he was silent. Although sensitive in
the extreme, as regarded France and Belgium, his knowledge of geography
and naval statistics, no doubt, enabled him to possess his soul in
patience.

Pius IX. could not but feel for his afflicted children of Germany. He was
moved, accordingly, to address a very earnest remonstrance to the Emperor,
William I. This was done so early as August, 1873. He could not believe
that such cruel measures proceeded from a prince who had so often given
proof of his Christian sentiments. He had even been informed that his
Majesty did not approve of the conduct of his government, and condemned
the laws which were enacted against the Catholic religion. “But, if it be
true that your Majesty does not approve of these measures (and the letters
which you formerly addressed to me appear to me to prove sufficiently that
you do not think well of what is actually taking place),—if, I say, it is
not with your sanction that your government continues to extend more and
more those repressive measures against the Christian religion which so
grievously injure that religion, must you not come to the conclusion that
such measures can have no other effect than to undermine your throne?” He
may possibly have thought so, when, a little later, his life was attempted
by parties who are known to seek the destruction of religion and civil
government at the same time. Be this as it may, his reply to Pius IX. was
not in his usual kindly style. It was scarcely polite, and appeared to be
the work of the savage chancellor rather than of the good-natured monarch.

The appeal of Pius IX. produced no result. The Emperor’s government added
to the harshness of his refusal by advising him to address a letter of
congratulation to the new bishop of the _alt-Catholics_. This was done, as
was expressed, “on account of his complete deference to the State and his
acknowledgment of its rights.” In another letter, which was also made
public, William I. recalled to mind those ancient Emperors of Germany who
were the irreconcilable enemies of the spiritual supremacy of the Popes,
and intimated that he was resuming the work of Frederick Barbarossa and
Henry IV. The association was unfortunate. The chancellor’s commentary was
more so. “We shall never,” he boasted, “go to Canossa!” These words,
spoken before the assembled parliament, were a defiance of Divine
Providence. Was it forgotten that there were other snows than those of
Canossa, in which Emperors could perish? The first Napoleon pursued, in
regard to the Church, the same policy that Germany was now pursuing. He
defied the religious power, and contemptuously asked _whether the arms
could be made to fall from the hands of his soldiers_! They did so fall,
nevertheless, when the demented Emperor led his legions into the snows of
Russia.

Pius IX. could not behold without concern the deep distress of his
brethren in Germany. He addressed an Encyclical letter, under date of 5th
February, 1875, to the Bishops of Prussia, lamenting the persecution which
tried them so severely, dwelling at great length on the evils of the _May
laws_, praising the constancy of the clergy, and exhorting them to
continued patience and perseverance. The whole doctrine of the Encyclical
may be said to be expressed in the following words:

“Let those who are your enemies know that you do no injury to the royal
authority, and that you have no prejudice against it when you refuse to
give to Cæsar what belongs to God; for it is written, ‘_We must obey God
rather than men_.’ ”

This eloquent letter, like everything else that was done in order to
mitigate the most trying persecution of modern times, remained without any
other result than to afford some comfort to the clergy of the afflicted
Church of Germany.

Pius IX., in order to show still further his appreciation of the constancy
under persecution of the German clergy, conferred the dignity of Cardinal
on Archbishop Ledochowski, who courageously accepted the proffered honor.
The persecuting government prevented him from ever enjoying it in his
diocese, by condemning him to perpetual banishment. This was, at least, an
approach to the cruelty practised on Fisher, the illustrious English
Confessor, who was consigned to the Tower of London because he would not
sanction the divorce of Henry VIII., and acknowledge the Royal Supremacy
in questions of religion. The Pope of the time sent him a cardinal’s hat.
But the enraged king took care that he should never wear it by cutting off
his head. The time was past when blood could be shed in hatred of the
truth, even by so hard a tyrant as the Prussian minister. In the
nineteenth century, however, as well as in the sixteenth, there would not
be wanting those who would resist unto blood for religion’s sake.

It was comparatively an easy matter to deprive and banish the legitimate
pastors, but not quite so easy to find priests so unprincipled as to
become their successors. The politic chancellor, apparently, had not
thought of this beforehand. In the course of five years he could find only
two ecclesiastics who would consent to accept benefices at his hands. All
those on whom he might have counted for establishing a schism in the
Church had already joined, with all the encouragement which the minister
could bestow, the _alt-Catholic_ sect, which, as has been shown, was
destined to prove a failure. It is almost superfluous to say that the
parishioners studiously avoided all communication in things spiritual with
the nominees of the State. Meanwhile, the faithful people were not left
destitute. Zealous young priests from the seminaries visited them
privately at their houses, and ministered to their religious wants. Such
as so acted were arrested and conducted to the frontier. They returned by
the next railway train. They were then cast into prison. As soon as they
were free they returned to the post of duty. There was in Germany a
revival of the Primitive Church—of the zeal and self-sacrifice of the
apostolic age. All this was met by the closing of the seminaries, the
severest blow that had, as yet, been struck against the cause of religion.
The chancellor, nevertheless, was not successful. The newspapers in his
interest, which he designated as the _reptile press_, laughed at his
short-sightedness. He had counted on accomplishing his purpose by some six
months of persecution. Generations would not suffice. The endurance of the
Church is unconquerable. It is as an anvil which wears out many hammers.
That which Chancellor Bismarck applied, so vigorously, will prove to be no
exception.(11) Southern Germany, it is a pleasure to record, abhors the
ridiculous _Kulturkampf_ of Chancellor Bismarck. Louis II., of Bavaria,
would fain follow in his wake. But, as is shown by the large Catholic
majorities at the elections, he is not seconded, even passively, as in
Prussia, by the Bavarian people. The persecution, attended by its
essential results, is rendering all Germany more Catholic than ever. When
its work shall have been accomplished, what will remain? The Church or the
_Kulturkampf_?

In the meantime many innocent persons must suffer: many time-honored
institutions will have been swept away: in the pursuit of an ideal
civilization, and by means of cruelties unworthy of an enlightened age,
many monuments which owed their origin to the superior civilizing power of
Christianity will have disappeared forever. In addition to all this,
feelings hostile to the Church, and prejudices hurtful as they are
groundless, are everywhere created. Pius IX. complained of this
unfortunate state of things, when he said (10th January, 1875): “The
revolution, not satisfied with persecuting Catholics in Prussia, excites,
on both sides of the Alps, those governments which profess to be Catholic,
but which have only too plainly led the way, in the shameful career of
religious oppression. It excites them to persist, more boldly than ever,
in the work of persecution, and these governments execute its behests. God
will arise, some day, and, addressing the Protestant oppressor, he will
say to him: Thou hast sinned—grievously sinned; but the Catholic
governments, on all hands, have still more grievously sinned. _Majus
peccatum habent._”

ITALY—EDUCATION.

At the time of the Piedmontese invasion, there were in the city of Rome,
one hundred and sixty-eight colleges or public schools.

The number of schools was twenty thousand, whilst the whole population of
the city was two hundred and twenty thousand. The pupils are classed as
follows, according to the statistics of his Eminence the Cardinal-Vicar,
in 1870:

Students, boarding in seminaries and colleges: 703
Students, day scholars, gratuitously taught in the schools: 5,555
Students, day scholars, who paid a small fee: 1,603
Total: 7,941

Girls, boarding in _refuges_: 2,986
Girls, day scholars, gratuitously taught: 6,523
Girls, day scholars, who paid a small fee: 2,871
Total: 11,380

General total: 19,321

Thus, including the orphans of both sexes, at _St. Michael de Termini_ and
other asylums, pupils are in the proportion of one to ten inhabitants.
This is not inferior to Paris, and surpasses Berlin, so much spoken of as
a seat of education. This Prussian (now German capital) reckoned, in 1875,
only eighty-five thousand scholars for a population of nine hundred and
seventy-four thousand souls, or ten scholars to one hundred and fourteen
citizens. The Godless schools, established by the new rulers, have
impeded, only to a certain extent, the development given to education by
the Government of Pius IX. In the poorer quarters of the city some parties
have been either intimidated by the threats of the _Department of
Charity_, or gained by the offer of bounties to themselves and a
gratuitous breakfast to their children. But, generally, the people of Rome
still resist, and several Christian schools have considerably increased
since 1870, the number of their pupils. This is all the more remarkable,
as the ruling faction showed a strong determination to put an end entirely
to Christian education. By the end of 1873, the usurping government had
confiscated more than one hundred monasteries, convents, and other
establishments of public education. A Lyceum was set up in place of the
celebrated Roman College, from which its proprietors, the Rev. Fathers of
the Society of Jesuits, were finally expelled in 1874. The better to show
their _animus_ on the occasion, the new Rulers tore down a magnificent
piece of sculpture, in marble, which adorned the gate, and on which was
engraved the blessed name of the Saviour, replacing it by the escutcheon
in wood of Victor Emmanuel.

As if to give zest to robbery, the Godless tyrants proposed that the
professors of the Roman College should continue their lessons, as
functionaries of the Italian government, and after having qualified by
accepting diplomas from a lay university. It would, indeed, have been
comical to see such men as Secchi, Franzelin, Tarquini, and many, besides,
the first professors in the world, seated on scholars’ benches, to be
examined by the semi-barbarous officials, whether civil or military, of
the Piedmontese King. Pius IX., although pressed by many wants, provided
an asylum for science. He called together the Jesuit Fathers who had been
dispersed, in the halls of the American and German Colleges. There,
although somewhat pinched for room, they continued their international
courses, the most extensive that ever were known.

The new Rulers, however, it is only proper to observe, never dared to
drive Father Secchi from his observatory.

There ought never to have been any difficulty in Italy as regards
education. The Italians were, and are still, of one mind, and not divided,
like us, into numerous denominations, all of which have to be considered
without prejudice to their religious views. The usurping Italian
government allotted one million of francs (£40,000) per annum, for
elementary education at Rome. Not one half of the children for whom this
bounty is intended, avail themselves of it—a fact which shows that the
popular want has not been met. The outlay only burdens the ratepayers
without advancing the end for which it is designed—elementary education.
Private persons supply the need according to the popular desire, by means
of regionary schools, supported entirely at their own expense, and with a
laudable degree of self-sacrifice. The same state of things prevails,
generally, throughout Italy, as is shown by a circular of the minister of
public instruction. The new government aims at nothing less than the
subversion of religious principle. This the Italians resist, and will
continue to resist. The government schools for secular and irreligious
education, among the upper classes, are like those for elementary
teaching, very thinly attended, parents preferring to send their children
abroad, and, when this cannot be afforded, to such ecclesiastical colleges
and seminaries as are still in existence. The State schools have already a
monopoly in the conferring of degrees and the consequent civil advantages.
It is proposed to go still further, and, actually, to close by force, all
the higher schools in which religion is recognized, even as the school
established by the Pope in the city of Rome, was recently put down. It is
thus that these emancipators of mankind understand liberty!

As regards female education, especially, the people will never, willingly,
give up the schools that are conducted by “Sisters” or “Nuns.” The
education which such schools afford is universally appreciated—among
ourselves who are divided, but more particularly among the Italians, who
are all Catholics. It is in vain _to kick against the goad_, and this the
Italian government will learn, some day, when it is cast forth as a rotten
institution by the people, whose dearest wishes it ignores. It is of no
use to suppose that Italy is advanced to a state of irreligion, and so
requires a system of Godless education. The contrary is well known. State
systems, based, not on statistical facts, but, on idle suppositions, must
needs come to nought.

ITALY—RELIGION.

“A free Church in a free State”—the great idea of such Italian liberals as
had any conception of a church at all, was surely to be realized when the
fellow-countrymen of Count de Cavour came to rule at Rome. What was the
case? There was neither a free church nor a free State? That State is not
free, wherein the people are not fairly represented. The new Italian State
could not claim any such representation. It was held in such contempt that
the great majority of the Italian people, unwisely, indeed, we who are
accustomed to constitutional government would say, declined to take part
in the elections. Thus the entire control of the country was left in the
hands of two comparatively small factions—the _moderate_ and the _extreme_
radicals. It is of little importance to the mass of the Italian people
which of these factions holds sway for the moment. They both legislate and
execute the laws in opposition to the will of the nation, and in the sense
and for the benefit of the prevailing faction. They are both alike
characterized by hatred of the Christian faith and all religious
institutions. This feeling impels them to war against everything connected
with Christianity, and to substitute what the Germans of the same school
call _Kulturkampf_, or, _a struggle for culture_, on principles the very
opposite of those on which is founded the high civilization of the
nineteenth century. No doubt these apostles of _Kulturkampf_ have a much
higher civilization in store for mankind. But it must be admitted that
they follow a strange way of bringing about the much-desired consummation.
Robbery and sacrilege they believe, or profess to believe, will promote
the great object of their ambition, and so they practice, to their heart’s
content, robbery and sacrilege. Have they forgotten that, according to
their code, it is a _Jesuitical_ teaching, that evil may be done in order
to produce good. These legislators and administrators of laws claim to be
superior to the _effete_ errors of the age. Why then should they still
cling to those of the despised _Jesuits_? Because, no doubt, it serves the
purpose of the moment, and affords some relief to, if it does not satisfy,
an insatiable passion. On approaching Rome they affected much reverence
for the Holy Father and the institutions of religion. They could do
nothing less, accordingly, than enact their now famous _law of
guarantees_, which assured complete protection to the Pope and the
institutions over which he presided. Let us enquire for a moment how this
law was enforced. It surpassed, in generosity to the church, the
legislation of the most chivalrous monarchs. It gave up the royal rights
of former kings in regard to nominating and proposing to ecclesiastical
offices. It dispensed with the oath of bishops to the king, and formally
abolished (see articles fifteen and sixteen) the _exequatur_, as it is
called, authorizing the publication and execution of all notable acts of
ecclesiastical authority. Such clear and apparently solemn regulations
appeared to be inviolable. Nevertheless, whilst one hundred and fifty
bishops were named by Pius IX., from the commencement of the Piedmontese
invasions till the month of August, 1875, no fewer than one hundred and
thirty-seven of this number were not acknowledged by the civil power,
because they did not apply for and obtain the _exequatur_. The ministry
was not satisfied with this. It pushed its tyranny to such an extreme as
to refuse in future, to grant the _exequatur_ and to expel from their
residences all bishops who should not possess it. Not only did the
government withhold the incomes of the bishops, and confiscate the
revenues which the piety of the people had devoted for their support, it
also employed its gensd’armes and police agents in seizing the prelates at
their homes and casting them into the streets. The new rulers went further
still, and displayed their financial genius in a way peculiar to
themselves. They actually subjected to the tax on moveable property, the
alms which the bishops received from the Sovereign Pontiff, who, like
themselves, was robbed of his proper income. Thus did the beggarly
government make money out of the small resources of those who, when the
exchequer failed to fulfil its duties, endeavored themselves, as best they
could, to make up for this dereliction.

Military conscription is essentially tyrannical. It is particularly so
when used as an arm of offence against the church. It was applied to
ecclesiastical students, and even to such as were in holy orders,
expressly for the purpose of depriving the church of recruits from the
seminaries. None could now be found to renew the ranks of the clergy,
except such as were invalids or of weak constitutions, or who, by miracle,
persevered in their vocation, after four years’ service in military
barracks.

The public robbers, notwithstanding their professions and guarantees,
audaciously laid sacrilegious hands on the properties of the Basilicas of
St. Peter and St. John Lateran, which they themselves had expressly
reserved for the use of the Holy See. They hesitated not even to seize the
funds of the celebrated missionary college—Propaganda. These properties
they did not simply annex, as they did so many, besides, that belonged to
the Church. They created a liquidating junta or commission, as they called
it, which should change all immovable ecclesiastical properties that were
not already confiscated into national rent. Such national rent, as is well
known, had only an ephemeral value. It was, at best, variable; and Italy,
which was partially bankrupt when it reduced the interest due to its
creditors, will, sooner or later, according to the opinion of the ablest
writers, land in complete bankruptcy. The rents substituted by force,
instead of real property, will then possess the value of the _assignats_
of the first French revolution.

The endowments of Propaganda, appointed by Christian generosity, at
different epochs, were not designed for the use of Rome or Italy, or any
Catholic country whatever. Their object was the support of remote
missions. This was well understood. The very name of the institution shows
that it was. In vain did Cardinal Franchi apply to the tribunals. The
properties of the great universal institution, as well as those of the
Chapters, were sold at public auction, and the confiscation, although not
immediate, was in course of being accomplished. The state of things did
not improve on the advent to power of Messrs. Nicotera and Depretis, the
former a radical of the most extreme views, and the latter, very little,
if at all, better. These revolutionists having gained the object of their
ambition, might have been inclined to halt in their mad career; but, their
party driving them onward, they proceeded to still more rigid and cruel
measures. It is not too much to say that such men are digging a grave for
the House of Savoy and Italian unity.

The measures aiming at the destruction of religion may be summarized as
follows:

1st. They have introduced civil registration of births, as an equivalent
and alternative to Christian baptism.

2nd. They have permitted and encouraged civil interment instead of
Christian burial.

3rd. They have abolished oaths in courts of law.

4th. They have systematically encouraged the profanation of the Sunday and
the great festivals of Christmas, Easter, etc., by ordering the
prosecution of the government buildings and other public works on Sundays;
by ostentatiously holding their sessions on those days: by ordering public
lectures in the universities and higher schools on Sundays as on week
days, etc.

5th. They have established civil marriage as an equivalent before the law
for Christian marriage, and as necessary, in all cases, besides the
religious ceremony.

6th. They have established a recognized system of public immorality by
indemnities, and deriving from this shameful source a revenue which is
applied to augment the secret service funds.

It is easily observed that in every detail of this enumeration, religion
and morals are directly attacked. The Pope, who is the chief of religion
and the great preacher of morality, cannot give any countenance to such
things. Far less can he identify himself with such anti-Christian
legislation. This is the insuperable impediment to his reconciliation with
the present Rulers of “United Italy.” He can resist evil, and resist unto
blood, as so many of his sainted predecessors have done. But when there is
question of accepting it, his only word must be, as it has always been,
_non possumus_. What would men say, if He, who is the Head of the Church,
and the chief guardian of the truth confided to Her keeping, could be
brought by the threats or caresses of ephemeral worldly Powers, _to call
good evil, and evil good_!

ITALY—CRIME.

Religion, when persecuted in any country, fails not to wreak vengeance on
the persecuting power. In such countries, virtue, generally, respect for
law, order and authority, as well as public security, rapidly diminish,
and the State discovers, although too late, that, in aiming at the Church,
it has struck against itself a deadly blow.

Since the inauguration of the much vaunted _Kulturkampf_, socialism has
increased to such a degree in Germany as to appal even Chancellor
Bismarck, whilst Italy, at the same time that it closed its convents and
Catholic colleges, was obliged to multiply not only its military barracks,
but also its prisons. In no part of Italian territory have these
preventives of crime, if, indeed, they may be so-called, proved
sufficient. So rapid has been the increase of crime, that, according to
official statistics, in the Province of Rome alone, seven thousand two
hundred and ninety-three cases were ascertained and brought before the
tribunals, in 1874. This is just double what appeared in the criminal
courts under the Pontifical government. In the whole kingdom there were
eighty-four thousand prisoners, or criminals under restraint. This is
thirty-five thousand more than in France, the general population of which
is greater by one-third, and four times more than in Great Britain, the
population of which is about the same as that of united Italy. This state
of crime is not surprising when it is considered that the rulers
themselves have never ceased to set the example of the most unscrupulous
and merciless theft and robbery. The new civil code, besides, appears to
have had no other object in view than to obliterate all idea of right, and
to legitimatize all robberies, past, present and future, in the
unfortunate kingdom of Italy. Article seven hundred and ten of this code
declares, plainly, _that property is acquired by possession_.

At Rome, barristers, judges, and even the most revolutionary journalists
are assassinated by private vengeance, in broad day, in the street, or in
their offices, and no one dare molest the murderers. In Romagna it was
found necessary to bring to justice an association of assassins, who were,
for the most part, persons of good education and men of property. In
Sicily matters were still worse. There, a society of Brigands, called
_Maffia_, holds the island in a state of perpetual terror. Numerous
Garibaldians who have been without employment since 1870, and were long
tolerated, on account of former complicity, added to the ranks of this
fraternity. The _Maffia_ rid themselves of another society, the _Kamorra_,
by the successive assassination at Palermo alone, of twenty-three of its
chiefs. All these crimes remain unpunished, none daring to bear witness
against the guilty.

In the departments of government there is not less moral disorder. The
finances are mismanaged and dilapidated. Notwithstanding the enormous and
oppressive increase of taxation, together with the forcible appropriation
of ecclesiastical property, deficits are the order of the day, and the
nation has been, more than once, and probably is still, on the verge of
bankruptcy. Truly, may the Italians, who are twenty-three to one, exclaim,
in their distress: _Quo usque tandem abuteris patientia nostra?_ “How
long, O disastrous revolution! wilt thou abuse our patience?”

Nor are the better thinking Italians without blame. Why did they not take
part—why do they not still take part in the elections, and return, as they
well may, a majority to the would-be constitutional parliament? Their
numbers would, undoubtedly, be imposing and influential. So much so,
indeed, that they must finally obtain admission, without burdening their
conscience with an obnoxious oath. What did not Daniel O’Connell,
Ireland’s liberator, accomplish, by causing himself alone to be elected
for an Irish constituency, and by proceeding to demand the seat to which
he was elected in the British parliament, without uttering an oath which
shocked his conscience?

RUSSIA AND THE EAST.

The cruel and sanguinary persecution of Catholics in the Russian Empire
was a cause of intense sorrow to Pius IX. He could do nothing towards
alleviating the sufferings of those unfortunate people. The Tsar,
Alexander II., shows in his treatment of his Ruthenian subjects of the
united Greek Church, that he is wholly unworthy of the reputation for
enlightenment and benevolence with which he has been credited. The
Empress, indeed, is blamed, together with her fanatical favorite, Melle.
Bludow, the Minister of Public Instruction, Tolstoy, and Gromeka, Governor
of Siedlce, for having urged him to use the power of the empire in forcing
conversions to Russo-Greek _orthodoxy_. That the heads of a semi-barbarous
nation should so advise is not surprising. The Tsar, who is an absolute
monarch, cannot be excused. There is every reason, besides, for holding
him personally responsible. When he was at Warsaw, a peasant woman,
bearing a petition, succeeded in obtaining admission to his presence. As
soon as he learned that the petition begged toleration for the united
Greek Church, he replied by inserting in all the newspapers a confirmation
of the orders formerly given for the extinction of that church. Count
Alexandrowicz de Constantinovo was repeatedly warned by the Russian
authorities that he had no right to attend the Latin churches, which,
being less persecuted, were a refuge for the united Greeks, when, indeed,
as was rarely the case, they were allowed to enjoy it. The Count, hoping
to be more liberally dealt with by the enlightened Tsar, who was said to
surpass in all that was great and noble, his tolerant predecessor,
Alexander I., proceeded to St. Petersburgh. The Tsar made a reply to his
representation, which, in the case of an ordinary mortal, would be taken
for a proof of stupidity, or of impenetrable ignorance. “The Orthodox
religion is pleasing to me. Why should it not please you also?” It
remained only for the Count to sell his properties and abandon his
country. More humble members of the obnoxious church could not so easily
escape. The savage treatment to which they were subjected can only be
briefly alluded to here. A persecution which has lasted more than a
hundred years, and is not yet at an end, is more a subject for the general
history of the church than for the life of Pius IX. A few facts,
therefore, must suffice.

In the important diocese of Chelm, particularly, the most ingenious
devices were had recourse to, in order to delude the Catholic people, and
induce them to comply with the requirements of the Russo-Greek Church. All
these failing, force was had recourse to, and it was used, assuredly,
without stint or measure. Seizure of property, imprisonment, the lash and
exile to Siberia, proved equally unavailing, as persecution, in every
form, must always be. Greater excesses were then had recourse to.

They who dared to perform a pilgrimage, take part in a religious
procession, or enter a Catholic Church, were shot down like the wild game
of the forests, by the fanatical myrmidons of the Tsar. In January, 1874,
the people of Rudno were forced to abandon their dwellings and take refuge
in the woods. At Chmalowski, several united Greeks, of whom three were
women, were flogged to death by Cossack troops. At Pratulin, in the
district of Janow, when a number of people assembled in a cemetery, were
guarding the door of the church against apostate priests, a German
colonel, who commanded three companies of Cossacks, ordered his troops to
fire. Nine of the people fell dead on the spot. A great many more were
mortally wounded. Of these four died within the day. “Thus does the Tsar
punish rebels,” said the savage colonel to the mayors of the neighboring
villages, whom he had forced to witness the execution. At Drylow, five men
were slain on the same day, and in the same cruel way as at Pratulin. So
recently as August, 1870, a body of peasants, returning from a pilgrimage,
were attacked by Russian soldiers. They defended themselves bravely, as
best they could, with no better weapons than their walking canes. Six of
the troops fell, and thirty, one of whom was an officer, were wounded.
Reinforcements coming to the aid of the military, the peasants were
defeated, and a great number of them killed and wounded. Among the latter
were many women, and seven children. Two hundred arrests were made, the
next and following days. The prisoners were at first immured in the
Citadel of Warsaw. It is not probable that they will ever be allowed to
visit their kindred or their native villages.

Pius IX., being partially informed of such cruelties, which it was utterly
beyond his power to prevent, wrote to the United Greek Archbishop of
Lemberg, Sembratovicz, conjuring him to send to the sorely persecuted
people all the help in his power, both spiritual and material. He
declared, at the same time, by the Bull, “_omnem sollicitudinem_” dated
13th May, 1874, that the Liturgies proper to the Eastern Churches, and
particularly that of the United Greeks, which was settled by the Council
of Tamose, in 1720, were always held in high esteem by the Holy See, and
ought to be carefully preserved. Hearing that a Bull which concerned them
had arrived from Rome, the Ruthenian peasants sent secretly to Lemberg, in
order to procure it. Their envoys entering Galicia without passports,
incurred the risk of being sent to Siberia. When the Bull was once
obtained, the people assembled in groups, in remote places, and any one
who could read, read it to the rest of the company. It was held in honor
as a relic. When the Russians discovered that the Bull was known to the
people, they did their best to cause it to be misunderstood, both among
the clergy and the laity. They insisted, even, that the Pope had discarded
the Greek rite; that henceforth, they who adhered to Rome, could not
celebrate either the Mass of St. John Chrysostom or that of St. Basil, and
that the marriage of secular priests, together with the Sclavonic
language, would cease to be tolerated.

It has been attempted to conceal from the civilized world the more
atrocious circumstances of the Russian persecution. But the darkest deeds
of the darkest despotism cannot be always done in the dark. The press of
continental Europe has informed the public mind. If anything were wanting
to satisfy English readers, generally, it would be found in the despatch
of Mr. Marshall Jewell, Minister of the United States, at St. Petersburgh,
to Mr. Secretary Fish. This document is dated at the United States
Legation at St. Petersburgh, 23rd February, 1874. The minister begins by
stating that he took great pains to be correctly informed, regarding the
state of matters, before writing his report. This, he adds, was not done
without difficulty, as the affair was kept very quiet at St. Petersburgh.
Certain repressive measures for the conversion of the Ruthenian Catholics
having proved inadequate, “new and more stringent orders were given a few
weeks later. In consequence of these orders, several priests (thirty-four,
I have been told) who persisted in performing the former services, were
arrested. In some localities the peasants refused to go to the churches
when the Orthodox priests officiated, until they were forced to go by the
troops. In other localities they assembled in crowds, shut the churches,
and prevented the priests from performing the offices. In one case, it is
said, a priest was stoned to death. Conflicts arose between the peasants
and the armed force. On such occasions many persons were maltreated, and
in the case of the village of Drelow—28th February—thirty peasants were
slain, and many more wounded. It is said, even, that several soldiers were
killed. It is reported that the prisons at Lublin and Kielce are crammed
with prisoners. The peasants have also been flogged, men receiving fifty,
women twenty-five, and children ten lashes each. Some women, more
determined and outspoken than the rest, were punished with a hundred
lashes. Like troubles, it is said, have occurred at Pratulin and other
localities, with loss of life.... Last summer, the peasants of divers
villages, in the Government of Lublin, were constantly obliged to submit
to examination, and to appear before the courts. It was, in consequence,
impossible for them to cultivate their fields; and, hence, they have been
reduced almost to a state of famine. (Signed.) MARSHALL JEWELL.”

THE EAST—CHURCH IN THE TURKISH EMPIRE.

It is comparatively an easy undertaking to create trouble and disturbance
in the church. It is not so easy, however, to establish a schism. The
Prussian chancellor learned this fact when he beheld the failure of his
_alt-Catholic_ scheme in Germany. Having tried the same game in Turkey,
his projects, notwithstanding the aid and countenance of the Mussulman
Power, proved abortive. The government of the sublime Porte had been very
tolerant hitherto, as regarded its Catholic subjects. In the early days of
Pius IX. it had concurred with the Holy See in establishing a Catholic
bishop at Jerusalem; it protected pilgrimages and processions; it favored
colleges and institutions for ecclesiastical education; and to such a
degree that, under its auspices and through its care, there are several
flourishing seminaries which renew the intellectual life of the people who
follow the Latin rite. A united Bulgarian church has been founded and is
daily gaining strength. The Maronites are almost completely restored after
the disaster of 1860. The number of Greek Catholics or Melchites, has been
almost doubled, so great is the number of conversions. The same may be
said of the Chaldean or Armenian Catholics. These last are probably the
best informed and the most influential of the Christian populations under
the Sultan’s rule. Prussian intrigue, and a momentary renewal of Mussulman
fanaticism, have done much to check, if not wholly to destroy this happy
state of things. One Kupelian, aspiring to be patriarch of Armenia, was
put forward by rich and influential parties as the administrator of their
nation, and they succeeded in obtaining from the Porte his investiture, as
the only true Head of the Armenian Catholics. The legitimate chief,
Hassoum, Patriarch of Cilicia, protested. In vain, however, as France was
no longer able to maintain his right. The last ambassador of that country
representing Napoleon III., had even supported the pretensions and favored
the machinations of the Kupelianites. The Porte was induced to treat
Hassoum as a seditious person, and banished him from the country. The
exile found his way to Rome, where he was kindly received by Pius IX. He
did not return to Constantinople till 1876. Meanwhile, persecution was
cruelly carried on. Bishops were expelled from their sees, rectors from
their parishes, churches, monasteries and hospitals were seized by force
of arms. At Damascus, Broussa, Sinope, Mardyn, Mossoul, all the principal
towns of the Ottoman Empire, Armenian Catholics were forcibly driven from
their churches, in order to make room for mere handfuls of Kupelianists.
The persecution extended as far as Cairo. At Augora, twelve thousand
Armenian Catholics were dispossessed in favor of twelve dissenters, one of
these twelve being an apostate monk, the delegate of Kupelian. At Adana,
the church, the school, and the residence of the Catholic Armenian bishop,
with all the revenues attached thereto, became the prey of two
individuals, a priest and a lay person. At Trebizonde, the bishop was
expelled by Russian bayonettes, and died of grief. The value of property
taken from Catholics is estimated at one hundred millions of livres. For
what, it may be asked, was the power of an empire exercised, and so much
robbery perpetrated? In favor, at least, one would say, of some important
sect? No such thing. It was all for the would-be Kupelian schism, seven
hundred strong. It is needless here to say how soon the degenerate Sultan,
Abdul Aziz, and his prevaricating empire met their reward, whilst the
legitimate Armenian patriarch, Hassoum, so long the victim of persecution,
has been restored, is honored by the government of his country and held in
the highest esteem by the Chief Pastor of the Christian fold. All this was
foretold by Pius IX., although, indeed, the Holy Pontiff pretended not to
utter a prophecy. In a letter intended for the consolation of the banished
Archbishop of Mardyn, in Mesopotamia, and the Armenian Catholics, he says:
“It behooves us not to lose courage, nor to believe that the triumph of
iniquity will be of long continuance. For, does not the Scripture say:
‘The wicked man is caught in his own perversity; he is bound by the chains
of his crimes, and he who digs a pit for others will fall into it himself:
he who casts a stone into the path of his neighbor, will strike against it
and stumble; finally, he who lays a snare for another will be caught
therein himself.’ This war, venerable, brother, is waged, not so much
against men as against God. It is because of hatred to his name that his
ministers and faithful people are persecuted. Persecution constitutes
their merit and their glory. God will at length arise and vindicate his
cause. Whilst I applaud your firmness, I most earnestly exhort you never
to let it fail you, but to possess your soul in patience, to wait
confidently, and, at the same time, courageously, for you rely not on your
own strength, but on the power of God, whose cause you maintain. Your
constancy will confirm that of your brethren of the clergy and of the
flock confided to your care. It will lead to a moral victory, assuredly
more brilliant and more solid than the ephemeral success of violence.”

It was not long till the news of the day bore that many distinguished
persons were returning to the one fold. A moral victory for the Armenian
Catholics was following fast in the wake of successful force. The number
of Kupelianists was diminishing. The churches and church properties of
Adana and Diabekir, were abandoned by them in 1876, and the schism was in
course of being extinguished.

The Chaldean patriarch, Audon, rashly undertook to establish a schism.
Towards the end of February, 1873, he was reconciled to Pius IX., and
relieved from the censures which he had incurred. The Chaldean Catholics
gave a great deal of trouble. However anxiously Pius IX. labored for their
salvation, they are insignificant in point of numbers, scarcely as many as
would constitute a parish in any of our cities. Any further historical
notice of them may, therefore, be very properly dispensed with.

CHINA—INDIA—JAPAN—WONDERFUL CHANGE.

China, where the light of Christianity has sought so long to penetrate and
dispel the dismal gloom of heathen darkness, may now, at length, be said
to enjoy the greatest possible degree of religious liberty. The European
Powers, Great Britain and France, whilst securing the freedom of trade,
and generally that intercourse which is customary between civilized
nations, neglected not, at the same time, to establish such relations as
render safe and available the labors of Christian missionaries. If, in
Tonquin, there occurred a fearful massacre of Christians, it was due to
the indiscretion of a French officer who exceeded his orders, and excited
against his fellow-countrymen and the Christian populations, generally,
the anger of the pagan Mandarins. The vengeance of these chiefs was
prompt, sweeping and cruel. In the localities inhabited by Christians only
some women and little children were spared. Not a house was left. The
French government probably, from unwillingness to recognize, in any way,
the action of its officer, refrained from punishing these atrocities. A
treaty, placing the whole country of Tonquin under the protection of
France, was concluded with the Emperor of Aunam, who is the Liege Lord of
Tonquin, and thus liberty to preach the Gospel secured for the future.

In India and Western China, liberty of conscience has long prevailed. Pius
IX. was, in consequence, enabled to increase the number of
vicariates-apostolic in those countries, as well as in China proper, in
proportion to the growth of the faithful people, however inconsiderable it
was, as yet in the midst of countless numbers of heathens and Mahometans.

The Pontificate of Pius IX. would be for ever memorable, if only on
account of the new era which appears, at length, to have dawned for the
long benighted empire of Japan. That empire was as a sealed book to all
Christian nations. As is well known, no traveller or merchant from any
Christian land could set foot on its territory without first performing
the revolting ceremony of trampling on the chief emblem of the Christian
faith. At one time, nevertheless, there were many Christians in Japan,
and, as will be seen, heathen prejudice and persecution had not been able
to extinguish the Divine light. It may be conceived how searching and
cruel the persecution was when it is remembered that, in the early part of
the seventeenth century, there were two millions of Christians, and, about
the same time, almost as many martyrs. All missionaries who, since 1630,
landed on the inhospitable shores of Japan, were immediately seized,
tortured, and put to death. It was generally believed that the Christian
people were totally exterminated. Pius IX., notwithstanding, as if
actuated by some secret inspiration, the very first year of his
Pontificate, created a vicariate-apostolic of Japan. Several endeavors to
enter into communication with the Japanese were made; but, for a long
time, to no purpose. The sealed-up empire, at length, opened its ports to
Great Britain and the United States of America. Such was the power of
trade. The other civilized nations could no longer be excluded. Japan
concluded a treaty with France by virtue of which the subjects of the
latter State were secured in the free exercise of their religion among the
Japanese. Mgr. Petitjean, who was, at the time, the vicar-apostolic,
availed himself of such favorable relations to erect a church at Yokohama,
and establish his residence at Nagasaki. All this was happily accomplished
under the encouraging auspices of Pius IX. One day, as the vicar-apostolic
had concluded the celebration of Mass, some inhabitants of a large village
named Ourakami, near the city, came to him with countenances, expressive,
at the same time, of joy and fear. Addressing him, they said: “Have you
and your priests renounced marriage, and do you honor in your prayers the
Mother of Christ?” The missionary replying in the affirmative, the
Japanese fell on their knees and exclaimed: “You are, indeed, the
disciples of Saint Francis Xavier, our first apostle. You are the true
brethren of our former Jesuit Fathers. At last, after a lapse of two
hundred years, we behold, once more, the priests of the true faith!” They
gave thanks to God, shedding abundance of tears, with which mingled those
of the good missionary; “religion,” they added, “is free only to
strangers. The law has not ceased to punish us Japanese Catholics with
death. No matter; receive us, nevertheless, and instruct us. The lapse of
time and the want of books have, perhaps, disfigured in our memories the
teachings of truth. There will happen to us whatever it shall please God
to appoint.”

Four thousand families, comprising fourteen thousand individuals, had
secretly persevered, clinging to the Catholic faith since the days of the
Apostolic Xavier. Notwithstanding all the prudence of the missionaries,
the secret of their relations with the natives became known to the local
police, and more than four thousand inhabitants of Ourakami were arrested,
bastinadoed, imprisoned or transported to the North. Their punishment
lasted four years. One-third of their number died of want, but few of them
gave way. The survivors of these persecuted people were finally restored
to their country, and through the representations of the European consuls,
religious liberty was granted, at least, provisionally, to natives as well
as strangers. Thus did Pius IX., at length, enjoy the consolation to
behold, established in peace, the church which St. Francis Xavier had
planted in the Empire of Japan, and which was so celebrated in the annals
of Christian heroism.

PERSECUTION IN BRAZIL.

Gonsalvez de Oliveira, Bishop of Olinda, had found it necessary to warn
his diocesans against the machinations of certain secret societies, which
were alike hostile to the Church and to the State. They had obtained so
much influence with the latter as to be able to attack, with impunity, the
Sisters of Charity, and the priests of the Lazarist congregation, as well
as all other zealous priests who sought to restore the discipline of the
church. Whilst, on the one hand, the bishop was sustained by the
congratulations and encouragement of the Holy See, and by the deference to
ecclesiastical authority of many Catholics who had been accustomed to
consider the secret societies as most inoffensive associations, he was
urged, on the other hand, by the fury of the chiefs of those societies,
who, alone, know all that they aim at and hold secret.

The Emperor, Don Pedro II., influenced by his free-thinking _entourage_,
judged that the pastoral letter should be denounced to the Council of
State. The councillors declared that it was an illegal document, not
having received the Imperial _placet_ “required by the Constitution of the
Empire.” Now commenced the most heartless, and, as is always the case,
unavailing persecution. By order of the ministry, the procurator-general
summoned the Bishop of Olinda before the Supreme Court of Rio Janeiro. The
intrepid prelate replied by a letter, in which he declared that he could
not, in conscience, appear before the Supreme Court, because it was
impossible to do so, without acknowledging the competence of a civil court
in matters purely religious. On 3rd January, 1874, the bishop was ordered
to go to prison. He intimated that he would yield only to force. The chief
of police, accordingly, accompanied by two army officers, repaired to the
Episcopal palace, and conducted Mgr. de Oliveira to the port where a ship
of war was in attendance, to transport him to the maritime arsenal of Rio
Janeiro, one of the most unwholesome stations in Brazil. There the
illustrious prisoner was visited by Mgr. Lacerda, Bishop of Rio Janeiro,
who took off his pectoral cross, which was a family keep-sake, and placing
it around the neck of Mgr. Oliveira, said: “My Lord, you have full
jurisdiction throughout this land to which you are brought as a captive.
My clergy, the chapter of my cathedral, all will be most happy to obey
your orders. Have the goodness to bless us all. The blessing of those who
suffer persecution in the cause of Christ is a pledge of salvation.”
Bishop Lacerda, before retiring, handed to the prisoner a large sum of
money, in order that he should want for nothing, and promised to renew his
visit as often as the gaolers would permit. Almost all the bishops of
Brazil sent congratulatory telegrams to the imprisoned bishop. One of them
went so far as to identify himself with the action of the Bishop of
Olinda, by doing in like manner. It was the Bishop of Para, who was
speedily transferred from his Episcopal palace to prison. The
administrator who filled his place, having refused to remove the interdict
which had been pronounced against certain confraternities which admitted
members of the secret societies, was condemned on 25th April, 1875, to six
years of forced penal labor. Four years of the like torture were decreed
against the administrator of Olinda for a similar offence. So much for the
humanitarian Emperor of Brazil and his enlightened advisers.

It was not long till new elections raised to power, men who had more
respect for the Episcopal office, and the wretched Brazilian persecution
came to an end.

The Bishop of Olinda was no sooner set at liberty than he repaired to
Rome, in order to give an account of his conduct to Pius IX. The Holy
Father gave him every proof of the warmest affection.

The lesser States of South America, which, on being emancipated from the
yoke of Spain, had chosen the republican form of government, became a
source of intense anxiety to the Holy Father. Venezuela, Chili, the
Argentine Republic, and, even Hayti, appear to have been seized with the
spirit of the time. They had become too great, one would say, to accept
humbly the teachings of religion. Even Chili, where comparative moderation
prevailed, made an attempt to subordinate in all things, spiritual as well
as temporal, the Church to the State. The bishops, as in duty bound,
protested; and, being unanimously supported by the people, the attack of
Chilian free-thinkers, on public peace and liberty, was abandoned. The
trouble in Hayti arose more from a desire, on the part of the negroes, to
have native priests than any real hostility to religion. The government
ignorantly assumed the right to appoint the chief administrators of the
Church. The people were painfully affected by this unwarrantable
encroachment on the spiritual power. It was hardly to be supposed that
Peru should be out of the fashion. Pius IX. appears, however, to have
settled the difficulties of the Peruvians, by granting to their presidents
the same right of patronage which was formerly enjoyed by the Kings of
Spain. The religious troubles of Mexico were not so easily composed. The
civil authorities of that sadly unsettled republic, urged, it is believed,
by the secret societies, aimed at nothing less than the total suppression
of religion. On 24th November, 1874, they decreed that no public
functionary or body of officials, whether civil or military, should attend
any religious office whatsoever. “The Sunday or Sabbath day,” they
impiously ruled, “shall henceforth be tolerated only in as far as it
affords rest to public employees.” Religious instruction, together with
all practices of religion, was prohibited in all the establishments of the
federation of the States and the municipalities. No religious act could be
done except in the churches, and there, only, under the superintendence of
the police. No religious institution was authorized to acquire real estate
or any capital accruing from such property. Article nineteen of this
detestable legislation, and which was carried by one hundred and thirteen
to fifty-seven votes, interdicted the Sisters of Charity from living in
community and wearing publicly their costume. Thus were expelled from
Mexico four hundred sisters, who performed their charitable offices in the
hospitals, schools and asylums of the country. Public opinion was roused,
but to no purpose. The good sisters were allowed to embark for France,
bearing with them the fate of thousands of the unfortunate. They may,
perhaps, be replaced by the Prussian chancellor’s deaconesses; of this
sisterhood, the best suited for the Mexican climate, would, no doubt, be
that portion which fled from Smyrna on the approach of an epidemic.

ECUADOR.

In the midst of so many discontented, turbulent, persecuting,
semi-barbarous States, there was one where there was neither discontent,
nor turbulence, nor persecution. This favored Republic of Ecuador was in
close communion with Pius IX., and its president discarding all the
fine-spun views and chimerical theories of the time, ruled, as became the
chief of a free State, according to the wishes and the generally accepted
principles of his people. A republic, so governed, provided it remain
uncorrupt, cannot fail to enjoy the highest degree of prosperity
compatible with its position and material resources. Not only did Ecuador
itself enjoy the fruits of its truly free and rationally republican
government, it was able also to extend the blessings of its Christian and
liberal civilization to neighboring tribes. Moved by the example and the
representations of the good people of Ecuador, nine thousand savages of
the Province of Oriente were induced to adopt the habits of Christian
civilization. The government of the enlightened president, Garcia Moreno,
was so abundantly blessed that, in twelve years, the trade of Ecuador was
doubled, as were also the number of its schools and the sum of its public
revenues.

So bright an illustration of the good-working of sound principles was not
to be tolerated. The love of a grateful and prosperous people could not
protect their great and successful fellow-citizens against the weapons of
secret conspirators. Political fanatics, who were strangers in Ecuador,
and who, according to their own declaration, bore no personal ill-will to
the president, struck the fatal blow. “I die,” said the illustrious
victim, as he expired, “but God dieth not!” The assassins were they who
hold that God has no business in this world. “_Dixit insipicus; non est
Deus_.”

Pius IX. lamented the death of Garcia Moreno, as he had lamented some
seven-and-twenty years before, the untimely fate of his own minister,
Count Rossi. He extolled the President of Ecuador in several allocutions,
as the champion of true civilization and its martyr. He caused his
obsequies to be solemnized in one of the Basilicas of Rome, over which he
still held authority, and ordered that his bust should be placed in one of
the galleries of the Vatican.

In the estimation of a certain class of politicians, Moreno was behind the
age. In reality he was far in advance of it. The mania for Godless
government, Godless education, Godless manners, and generally a Godless
state of society, is only a passing phase on the face of the world. If,
indeed, it be anything more, woe to mankind! Despair only can harbor the
idea of its long continuance. The social and political chaos which darkens
the age, must, surely, a little sooner or a little later, give way to that
order which is heaven’s first law. Moreno beheld, through the storms that
raged around his infant State, the early dawn of this better day. This
light led him onwards. History will place him, not only among heroes and
sages, but also among the most renowned initiators of great movements. His
death is a glorious protest against the Godless, reckless, revolutionary
sects. His high career will be as a monument throughout the centuries,
constantly reminding mankind that, in this age, which may well be called
the age of chaos and confusion—confusion in politics, confusion in the
social State, confusion of ideas—there was, at least, one favored spot,
where truth, order and justice reigned, and there was a contented and
happy people.

STATES OF EUROPE—SWITZERLAND.

The Protestant and free-thinking majority in Switzerland were jealous of
the prosperity of the Catholic Church. They must, therefore, if possible,
divide, and by dividing, weaken, if not destroy, the Catholic body. The
most efficient means they could think of was the establishment of an old
or _alt-Catholic_ Church on the model of that of Germany. The idea was at
hand, and the elements were not far to seek. Among the Swiss Catholic
clergy there were none so weak as to betray their church. In the
coterminous country—France, where there are fifty thousand parochial
priests, some thirty were found already in disgrace among their brethren,
who were ready to form the nucleus of the proposed schismatical church.
The pretext was the pretended novelties introduced by the Œcumenical
Council of the Vatican, which, they insisted, changed the character of the
ancient Catholic Church. The schism once on foot, the majority in the
State affected to treat the real Catholics as dissenters, and the handful
of schismatics as the Catholic Church of Switzerland. Founding on this
idea, persecution was speedily inaugurated. First came the secularization
of several abbeys, which the revolution of the sixteenth century had
respected, in the northern cantons, and the confiscation of the Church of
Zurich, which was handed over to the _alt-Catholics_. Their next measure
was the expulsion of Mgr. Mermillod, Bishop of Hebron and Coadjutor of
Geneva. Mgr. Lachat, Bishop of Bale, was then deprived, and, on a purely
theological pretext, his public adhesion to the Council of the Vatican.
The sixty-nine parish priests of Bernese Jura, having declared in writing
that they remained faithful to the Bishop of Bale, were, in their turn,
suspended from their offices and driven, at first, from their parishes,
and afterwards from the country. As there was not a sufficient number of
foreign priests to replace the dispossessed clergy, the number of parishes
was arbitrarily reduced from seventy-six to twenty-eight. It was regulated
that nominations should, henceforth, be made by the government alone, and
by a single stroke of the pen were suppressed, both the Concordat
concluded with Rome, in 1828, and the act of re-union of 1815, by which,
when Bernese Jura, formerly French, was incorporated with Switzerland, an
engagement was made with France to respect, in every way, the liberty of
Catholic worship. France was not in a position, at the time, to enforce
the terms of the treaty. They who dared to call it to mind, accordingly,
were sent to prison or heavily fined.

Almost all the Bernese clergy, when banished from their churches and
presbyteries, sought shelter and protection on the hospitable soil of
France. From that country they returned often, under cover of night, to
their forsaken parishes, in order to administer the sacraments and perform
other religious offices for the consolation of their flocks, hastening
back to the land of liberty and safety before the approach of day. The
persecution was carried to such extremes that the Catholics were not only
deprived of their churches, but forbidden, under severe penalties, to
assemble for Divine worship, even in barns or such-like places. “As an
official of the State of Bearn,” wrote a school inspector to a school
mistress, “you are bound to strive, with all your might, that the purposes
of the said State, as regards attendance at public worship, be carried
out. If your conscience does not admit of your attending the Church which
is recognized and approved by the government, I leave you at liberty to
refrain from attending any worship, but I forbid you to go to the barn,
where the deprived parish priest officiates, because I would not have you
set a bad example to your children.”

No encouragement or word of consolation that Pius IX. could bestow, was
wanting to his persecuted children of Switzerland. In addressing Bishop
Lachat, whom he received with every mark of friendship, when he came to
represent the sad condition to which he was reduced, the Holy Father said:
“To you also it is now given to experience the greatest happiness that can
fall to the lot of an apostolic man. This happiness is thus expressed in
the New Testament: _Ibant gaudentes, quoniam digni habiti sunt pro nomine
Jesu contumeliam pati._ They went away rejoicing, because they were
thought worthy to suffer reproach for the name of Jesus.”

The Prussian chancellor, as devoid of humanity as he was short-sighted in
statesmanship, forbad the exiled clergy of Switzerland to set foot in the
annexed Province of Alsace. The brutal conduct of the chancellor could,
however, only injure himself. It stigmatizes him as a persecutor
throughout the ages, as long as history shall be read, whilst the
sufferers to whom he refused shelter and bread, found abundant
compensation in the generous hospitality of the French nation.

_Mentita est iniquitas sibi._ The persecution brought little benefit to
either the Protestant or infidel party in the Bernese Legislature, by whom
it was inaugurated, whilst the moral power of the Catholics was greatly
increased. Travellers relate that “the Catholics of Jura treat with a
degree of contempt, as immense as is their faith, the apostate priests who
banished the true ministers of God. They assembled in barns and all sorts
of out-buildings, all remaining faithful to God, the Holy Church and their
parish priests. Faith which slept in some souls is reawakened and endowed
with new life. Bernese Jura is more Catholic than ever.”

The Central Council of the Swiss Confederation, at length, became ashamed
of the inglorious name which the Canton of Bearn was making for the common
country—the country of William Tell so highly famed for its love of
liberty and its noble hospitality. Perhaps, also, they were not
unconcerned to find that travellers from other lands protested, in their
way, against the barbarous persecution, and left their money in more
favored lands.

The Bernese government was advised, either to proceed legally and
regularly against the parish priests, or to recall them. There being
nothing on which to found legal proceedings, the exiles returned to their
country at the end of 1875. The persecution was not, however, at an end.
Neither churches, nor presbyteries, nor liberty, were restored. The
faithful clergy, rich in the fidelity of their devoted flocks, fulfilled
the duties of their ministry in the darkness of night, using every
precaution in order to escape the snares of the police, and to avoid fines
and imprisonment, which were now the punishment instead of exile.

GREAT BRITAIN AND THE BRITISH COLONIES.

Taking leave of the dark and dreary pages which bear the melancholy record
of persecution, we turn, with a feeling of relief, to the more cheering
picture presented by those countries where the great principle of
religious liberty has come, at length, to be fully understood. It was a
great day for the united kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, when the
legal disabilities which weighed so long on the Catholic people, were
removed. It was the noble and powerful protest of a mighty empire against
the narrow and irrational spirit of persecution, which still disgraces so
many of the European nations. If ever the Catholics, by superiority of
numbers, which is far from being an impossible state of things, should
come to sway the destinies of that empire, the glorious fact will be
remembered and bear its fruit. England, Ireland and Scotland, already
enjoy an abundant measure of their reward, in the increase of piety and of
that righteousness which exalteth a nation. This is manifest in many ways.
It is particularly shown forth by the more friendly feeling towards the
Catholics of the empire which now universally prevails. We may not be
supposed to know much, here in Canada, about the state of sentiment or
opinion in England. But when we appeal to the testimony of so eminent an
Englishman as Cardinal Newman, what we affirm cannot be easily gainsaid.
In a discourse recently delivered at Birmingham, on the growth of the
Catholic Church in England, the very learned cardinal noted the striking
contrast between the feeling towards Catholics in Cardinal Wiseman’s time
and that of the present day, and accounted for the improvement by showing
that there is now a much better knowledge of the Catholic religion among
Protestants. “What I wish to show,” said his Eminence, “and what I believe
to be the remarkable fact is, that whereas there have been many
conversions to the Catholic Church during the last thirty years, and a
great deal of ill-will felt towards us, in consequence, nevertheless, that
ill-will has been overcome, and a feeling of positive good-will has been
created instead in the minds of our very enemies, by means of those
conversions which they feared from their hatred of us. How this was, let
me now say: The Catholics in England, fifty years ago, were an unknown
sect amongst us. Now there is hardly a family but has brothers or sisters,
or cousins or connections, or friends and acquaintances, or associates in
business or work, of that religion, not to mention the large influx of
population from the sister island: and such an interpenetration of
Catholics with Protestants, especially in our great cities, could not take
place without there being a gradual accumulation of experience, slow,
indeed, but therefore the more sure about individual Catholics, and what
they really are in character, and, whether or not, they can be trusted in
the concerns and intercourse of life; and I fancy that Protestants,
spontaneously, and before setting about to form a judgment, have found
them to be men whom they could be drawn to like and to love quite as much
as their fellow-Protestants—to be human beings in whom they could be
interested and sympathize with, and interchange good offices with, before
the question of religion came into consideration.”

The increase in the number of Catholics and of Catholic institutions in
Great Britain, has kept pace with the growth of friendly sentiments in
their regard. That island, “the mother of nations,” appears to be destined
to unite by means of her ever spreading language, the immense family of
mankind. For what end and purpose none can tell. The hidden ways of Divine
Providence are known to God alone. We may, nevertheless, in view of
certain well-known facts, presume to draw the veil of mystery aside, and
discover so far the secret of God’s mercy. In Pius the Ninth’s time the
number of Catholics has been doubled in Great Britain, as well as in the
United States of America, Canada, Australia, remote India and the Cape of
Good Hope.

At the time of the election of Pius IX., there were in England and
Scotland eight hundred and twenty Catholic priests. There are now two
thousand and eighty-eight.(12) The number of churches and chapels had
grown from six hundred and twenty-six to one thousand three hundred and
fifteen. Within the last twenty years religious houses for men had
increased from twenty-one to seventy-three, and convents for religious
sisters, from ninety-seven to two hundred and thirty-nine. Catholic
schools and colleges had more than doubled their number, being now one
thousand three hundred, whilst a little over twenty years ago it was five
hundred.

In the British colonies, generally, including British America, Australia,
India, and the West Indies, there were, in 1855, no more than forty-four
Episcopal Sees, several of which owed their erection to Pius IX. By the
year 1876, the solicitude of the same venerable Pontiff had raised to
eighty-eight, the number of archbishops and bishops who exercised the
duties of their sacred office, throughout the Colonial Empire of Great
Britain. In the whole empire there cannot be fewer than one hundred and
twenty-five prelates, whether vicars-apostolic, archbishops, bishops, or
prefects-apostolic.

In no country have the benefits of religious liberty been more abundantly
enjoyed than in Canada. In 1869, the two Provinces of Ontario and Quebec,
formerly Canada West and Canada East, counted ten dioceses and seven
hundred and seventy-nine churches. Including Sherbrooke, Chicoutimi, and
the vicariate-apostolic of Northern Canada, there are now thirteen
dioceses in the two provinces, whilst, during the seven years anterior to
1876, there was an increase of one hundred and seventy-three churches,
making, in all, one thousand one hundred and seventy-one. In the same
period religious houses had increased from seventy-three to one hundred
and ninety-six. Education of a religious character is, at the same time,
amply provided for. There are, in the Province of Quebec, three thousand
one hundred and thirty-nine parochial, and altogether three thousand six
hundred and thirty elementary schools, for a population of one million
eight hundred and eighty-two thousand souls. These schools, without
including educational institutions of a more private kind, which are very
numerous in Lower Canada (Quebec), allow one school to every six hundred
people. It may be doubted whether Prussia, even, which possesses greater
facilities for education than any other European country, comes up to this
standard. The increase of Catholic people everywhere, throughout the
country, keeps pace with the building of churches and the establishing of
Catholic schools and other religious institutions. This increase is
particularly noticeable in the towns and cities, where the growth of the
Catholic population is remarkably rapid.

In all the British dependencies, liberty, as understood by the British
people, prevails; and, wherever it is held in honor and exercises its
legitimate influence, religion nourishes. Contrast, for instance,
Australia, when a penal colony, and when liberty was unknown with
Australia, as it is to-day. In 1804 two priests were permitted, by the
civil power, to perform the duties of their sacred office. Their labors
sufficed for the very limited spiritual wants of the colony. By 1827 these
wants had so slightly increased that two priests were still able to meet
them all. One of these was Dr. Ullathorne, now Bishop of Birmingham,
assisted by another priest and a lay teacher. So late as 1842, matters
were little better, Hobart-town having one priest, but no church.
Australia, meanwhile, was growing in importance, and it came to possess,
as became an important British colony, constitutional government. This was
a new era for the cause of religion. Australia has now, 1880, two
archbishoprics and ten other episcopal sees. In three of the dioceses,
Melbourne, Sandhurst and Perth, there are no fewer than one hundred and
thirty-five priests.

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

At the epoch of Independence, 1776, the number of Catholics in the new
republic was estimated at twenty-five thousand. The spiritual wants of
this comparatively small body were ministered to by nineteen priests, who
were under the jurisdiction of the bishop Vicar-Apostolic of London,
England. By 1790, the number of priests was doubled, and a bishop was
appointed. In 1840, there were in the United States one million five
hundred thousand Catholics. By 1855, they had grown to two millions. In
the twenty-one years from 1855 to 1876 the increase was from two millions
to six million five hundred thousand. This extraordinary growth, though
rapid, was, nevertheless, vigorous and healthy. There was a corresponding
increase in the numbers of the clergy, as well as of religious and
educational institutions. For the instruction and spiritual comfort of so
great a flock, there were, in 1879, no fewer than five thousand three
hundred and fifty-eight priests, with fifty-six bishops and archbishops,
five thousand and forty-six churches, three thousand seven hundred and
eleven oratories and missionary stations. Religious houses have also
increased in due proportion. In 1855, there were only fifteen religious
houses for men in all the United States. There are now ninety-five.
Communities of religious sisters, who chiefly devote themselves to works
of charity and instruction, also flourish. In 1855 there were only fifty
such communities. There are now two hundred and twenty-five. Educational
institutions of a religious character also abound. In 1800, there was only
one Catholic academy for girls in all the United States. At the present
day they number more than four hundred. Catholic colleges have increased
from two to sixty-four.

The number of parochial schools is not so great, in proportion to the
population, as in the Province of Quebec. This is accounted for by the
still defective state of religious liberty in the United States. There is
a sort of State fanaticism there in favor of common or national schools.
Whilst Catholics cannot avail themselves of such institutions, which
provide only a Godless education, they are, nevertheless, heavily taxed
for their support. Being so burdened, it is surely much to the credit of
the Catholics of the United States that they, in addition, support two
thousand two hundred and forty-four parochial schools, besides six hundred
and sixty-three colleges or academies, and twenty-four seminaries, for
higher and ecclesiastical education. Notwithstanding the drawback alluded
to, Pius IX. entertained a high idea of the North American Republic, and
he showed that he did so when he declared that it was almost the only
country wherein he could exercise, without hindrance, the duties of his
sublime office. He further evinced his appreciation by raising several
American bishops to the dignity of archbishop, and one to that of
cardinal. The Archbishop of New York is the first American who has enjoyed
the high position of cardinal. He was formally thanked for this
well-merited honor by the President of the United States, and all America
concurred in extolling the wisdom of the choice which gave the dignity to
the Most Rev. Archbishop McCloskey, of New York.

HIERARCHY OF SCOTLAND.

One of the latest labors of Pius IX. was that which he undertook, on the
urgent request of the Catholics of Scotland, in connection with the
restoration of the ancient Scottish hierarchy. The venerable Pontiff, now
so far advanced in years, did not live to complete this important work.
The late reverend and learned Dr. Grant, President of the Scotch College
at Rome, ceased not, meanwhile, to promote, as representing the Catholics
of Scotland, the institution of the hierarchy. His knowledge of the
country and historical research eminently qualified him for the task. The
work, so happily commenced under the auspices of Pius IX., was brought to
a conclusion soon after the accession of his successor, Leo XIII. The Most
Rev. John Strain, well known as a sound theologian and eminently practical
preacher, was appointed Archbishop of St. Andrews and Edinburgh. The
learned prelate thus became the successor of the ancient Archbishops of
St. Andrews and Primate of Scotland. The other Episcopal Sees erected were
Glasgow, Aberdeen, Dunkeld, Galloway, Argyll and the Isles. Glasgow, in
consideration of its former honors, was made an archbishopric, but without
suffragans. The archbishop is a member of the Synod of St. Andrews and
Edinburgh. To the undying honor of the people of Scotland, there is
nothing more to record. There were no commotions, no eloquent appeals for
the purpose of allaying groundless fears and calming the popular mind, to
burden the tale of the historian. An unsuccessful attempt at riot, by some
rowdies, in a city of six hundred thousand souls, confirms rather than
derogates from the absolute truth of this statement.

There are already in the Archdiocese of St. Andrews and Edinburgh several
important religions institutions. Among these may be mentioned four
communities of religious sisters. The sisters, called “Ursulines of
Jesus,” have two establishments in the city of Edinburgh, and devote
themselves entirely to education and charity. There are fifty-four
churches, chapels and stations. The missions, properly so-called, are
twenty-eight in number, and forty-three priests, of whom thirteen are
members of religious societies, perform all the missionary duty and
minister to the spiritual wants of the congregations. It cannot be said
that education is neglected, and such education as recognizes religious
principle; there being, in addition to the convent schools, thirty-six
congregational or parochial schools.

In the Archdiocese of Glasgow, one hundred and twenty-one priests, of whom
twenty-four are members of religious societies, attend to the spiritual
wants of the missions and congregations. The Glasgow missions count
fifty-nine, with seventy-eight churches, chapels and stations. The
congregational or parochial schools number one hundred and eighty-six, in
addition to religious educational institutions.

Aberdeen has forty-seven priests, of whom seven are members of the
Benedictine Order. It has thirty-two missions, with fifty-one churches,
chapels and stations. Colleges, convents, and congregational schools, are
in proportion to the Catholic population.

Dunkeld contains within its borders the important seaport town of Dundee,
and the ancient city of Perth, where may still be seen the Church of St.
John, against which the Knox Iconoclasts cast the first stone—the sad
prelude to their furious onslaught on all the sacred edifices of the land.
At Dundee there is a numerous Catholic population. In the whole diocese
there are thirty-three priests, of whom twelve are members of the
religious Society of Redemptorists. There are religious communities of
Sisters of Mercy, Little Sisters of the Poor, and Ursulines of Jesus. The
Marist Brothers and Redemptorists have their monasteries, and there is a
creditable number of congregational schools.

The ancient See of Whithorn (Candidacasa) is now known as the diocese of
Galloway. It dates from St. Ninian, the apostle of the Southern Picts, by
whom it was founded in 397. It was destroyed in the time of the
Scandinavian invasions, and remained extinct from 808 till 1189. It fell
again at the epoch of the Reformation, and had no bishop from the death of
Andrew Durie, in 1558, till the appointment of Bishop McLachlan by Leo
XIII. The residence of the bishop is at Dumfries, where there is a
numerous congregation and an elegant church.

Argyll and the Isles is a diocese full of promise. The traditions of its
piety in ancient days are a rich inheritance. It has already thirty-eight
churches, chapels and stations, together with some numerous congregations.

INCREASE AND NUMBER OF CATHOLICS THROUGHOUT THE WORLD IN THE TIME OF PIUS
IX.

About the time of the accession of Pius IX., the Catholic population of
the world was estimated by scientific men at two hundred and fifty-four
million six hundred and fifty-five thousand (see the _Scientific
Miscellany_ of the time). Since that time there has been a very
considerable increase. How great it has been we may judge from the
statistics with which we are most familiar, those of Great Britain and the
British Colonies, as well as those of the United States of America. The
eminent statisticians, Drs. Behm and Wagner, hold that the number of
Protestants has more than doubled in the same period. Some thirty-five
years ago, according to the _Scientific Miscellany_, the Protestant
population of the world was forty-eight million nine hundred and
eighty-nine thousand. Without saying that the learned men alluded to are
wrong in estimating them now at one hundred and one million, it may be
claimed that Catholics have enjoyed at least as great an increase. The
tendency of the latter, in the present age, is to spread and to spread
rapidly, whilst among Protestants, according to their own ablest writers,
there exists no such expansive power. An opinion prevails among those who
are not friendly to the Catholic Church, that such an institution can only
take root and grow in an age of ignorance, or among ignorant people. This
opinion enjoys not the sanction of the most distinguished Protestant
authors and preachers. Baron Macaulay writes: “We often hear it said that
the world is constantly becoming more and more enlightened, and that the
enlightenment must be favorable to Protestantism and unfavorable to
Catholicism. We wish that we could think so. But we see great reason to
doubt whether this is a well-founded expectation. We see that during the
last two hundred and fifty years the human mind has been in the highest
degree active; that it has made great advances in every branch of natural
philosophy; that it has produced innumerable inventions, tending to
promote the convenience of life; that medicine, surgery, chemistry,
engineering, have been very greatly improved; that government, police and
law, have been improved, though not to so great an extent as the physical
sciences. Yet we see that during these two hundred and fifty years
Protestantism has made no conquests worth speaking of. Nay, we believe
that as far as there has been change, that change has been in favor of the
Church of Rome. We cannot, therefore, feel confident that the progress of
knowledge will necessarily be fatal to a system which has, to say the
least, stood its ground in spite of the immense progress made by the human
race in knowledge since the time of Queen Elizabeth.” If, then,
Protestantism, as regards increase and development, has been at a
stand-still for the last two(13) hundred and fifty years, whilst it is
admitted on all hands that Catholicism has been growing rapidly, it is
not, surely, unreasonable to claim that the increase of Catholics keeps
pace with that of Protestants. The claim, however, must be waived, as it
would give a greater expansion to the Catholic Church than Catholics can
suppose it is entitled to. If the number of Catholics had doubled within
the last five-and-thirty or forty years, as that of Protestants is alleged
by the learned statisticians to have done, they would now count five
hundred and nine million three hundred thousand. Behm and Wagner estimate
them at two hundred and seventy million.

Judging by the facts alluded to, this estimate is certainly below the
mark, and we shall still be considered as determining for a low figure
when we reckon the Catholic population of the whole world at three hundred
million.

The heathen masses are still the most numerous. But, if the statement
recently made by the Secretary of the Chinese Legation, at Washington, may
be relied on, they are not overwhelmingly so. This statement reduces the
population of China from the fabulous number of four hundred million to
one hundred million. It is not, surely, reasonable to suppose, as the
world has so long supposed, that one nation, China, has a population
double that of all the nations of India. The whole heathen world,
therefore, cannot count more than six hundred and fifty million souls—too
many to be still in darkness and the shadow of death. But let each
believer labor to convert a heathen, and there will be light at last. The
believing portion of mankind is not so far behind, in point of numbers, at
least. It consists of (according to Drs. Behm and Wagner):

300,000,000 Catholics.
90,000,000 members of the Greek Church.
101,000,000 Protestants.
7,000,000 Jews.

ANNIVERSARY OF THE EPISCOPAL CONSECRATION OF PIUS IX.

The 3rd of June, 1877, was a great day for Rome and the Catholic world. Of
all the _fetes_ which Plus IX. was favored to celebrate, there was none
more honored than the anniversary of his episcopal consecration. One would
say that the faithful Catholic people everywhere had resolved to make it
an occasion of protesting against the treatment to which the venerable
Pontiff was subjected, and the false principles which governed the Italian
faction, by which he was so cruelly persecuted. Pilgrims came from all
lands and crowded the streets of the Papal city; for such it still was.
Notwithstanding all the efforts of the usurping government, the Roman
people acknowledged no other ruler at Rome than the Holy Father. During
six months of the year 1877, the devoted Catholics of every nation ceased
not to throng the streets, the approaches to and from the halls of the
Vatican Palace. Nor did they come empty-handed. They were literally laden
with gold and silver, together with an endless variety of other rich and
appropriate gifts. A month before the anniversary day, there were already
five hundred chalices, as well as other church plate, jewellery,
vestments, altar linens, etc., deposited in the Vatican. An eye-witness
beheld these precious offerings suitably laid out in one of the largest
galleries, forming an immense treasury, from which the benevolent Pontiff
supplied the poorer missions throughout the world. Congratulatory
addresses were constantly presented, and Pius IX. was indefatigable in
receiving these proofs of the faith and love of his spiritual children.
Day after day he made replies to deputations, and often, four times a day
without appearing fatigued or giving any sign that his bodily strength or
vigor of mind was failing him. Day after day, throughout the whole summer
of 1877, the faithful people ceased not to astonish the new masters of
Rome, who flattered themselves with the belief that faith was dead in the
world, and would no longer be an impediment to their domination. They
beheld pilgrims from every clime in vast numbers, of which they could form
no estimate. They also heard their voice, and wondered at their admirable
unanimity. “All of us, whoever we are, Christians of every nation and of
every tongue,” said the Bishop of Poitiers, speaking in the name of his
fellow-Catholics, “we have all been brought here by the desire, the
necessity we are under, to offer our tribute of regret and love to the
venerated Pontiff, whom the whole world honors with all the veneration of
filial duty. After having placed at his feet our presents and our
respectful homage, we come to offer, in this sanctuary, our thanksgiving
and our prayers—our thanksgiving, for Pius IX. has been preserved to us
beyond the term of all preceding Pontificates—our prayers for his
remaining in this life is, at present, our only pledge of safety.”(14)

On occasion of the memorable anniversary, Pius IX. proclaimed a jubilee,
and thus afforded to all his children throughout the universe an
opportunity of uniting with those of Rome in one common prayer and act of
thanksgiving. Numberless communions, in every Catholic land, on the very
day of the anniversary—3rd June—bore witness to the lively faith which
universally prevailed, and made it plain as noon-day to the unbelieving
that the body of the Church is united by the bond of charity, even as is
the family by the ties of blood. The power of such a celebration was
widely felt. And the revolutionists of Italy believed that something must
be done in order to counteract its influence. They could not propose, as
they had done six years before on occasion of the anniversary of Pius the
Ninth’s exaltation to the Popedom, to display on all the public edifices
of Rome the flag of revolutionized Italy in fraternal union with that of
the Pontiff and the Church. It must, therefore, be unfurled in direct
opposition to the cause of the Holy Father. A festive commemoration of the
“constitutional statute” was ordered to be held on the 3rd June, the day
of the Papal celebration. The scheme proved to be more than a failure. It
was intended as an insult to the Pope and protest against the Christian
faith. In reality it became a testimony which redounded to the honor of
the Holy Father and the glory of religion. What cared the Romans, or the
people of the Roman territory, for the “constitutional statute” of Charles
Albert? Their _vivats_ were all for Pius IX. and his more constitutional
constitution.

“Long live Pius IX.!—Pius IX., our only King!” No other cry was heard in
the streets of Rome, or in the wide campagna. The populations of the
country as well as of the city were alike devoted to Pius IX., and would
have no other to rule over them. The usurping revolutionists must needs
retaliate. In doing so, they still more degraded their _fete_ of the
“constitutional statute.”

On occasion of royal _fetes_, favors are liberally dispensed. This order
of things was now reversed. Parties convicted of illuminating their
houses, of displaying white and yellow colors, or of expressing in words
their loyalty to Pius IX., were sentenced to imprisonment.

DEATH OF ANTONELLI AND PATRIZI.

Shortly before the anniversary celebration, Pius IX. had to lament the
death of his faithful Secretary of State, Cardinal Antonelli. This
intrepid statesman had done battle courageously during six-and-twenty
years for the Church, the Holy See and the temporal sovereignty of the
Roman Pontiff, who had been threatened in his life, his priestly honor and
his character for integrity. The devoted cardinal defied both the poniard
and the tongue of the calumniator. Although able to unmask the most secret
intrigues of the revolutionists, he could not avert the blow which it was
permitted that they should strike against the time-honored institutions of
his country. They appear to have been destined to reign for a time. Their
success did not appal Antonelli nor shake his fidelity. In evil report and
good report he stood by his sovereign, and shared his exile as well as the
honor which he enjoyed in the more auspicious days of his glorious
Pontificate.

Three weeks later, Cardinal Patrizi, who was Vicar of Rome and chief
counsellor of Pius IX. in all matters connected with the government of the
church, was called from this earthly scene. Thus was the aged Pontiff
destined to be tried by new afflictions. The success of his enemies and of
the enemies of the Church, the privation and humiliation to which he was
subjected, were rendered more severe by the death of his dearest friends
who were also his ablest supporters. He was grieved, but could not be
crushed by so many calamities. He remained until his health utterly failed
equal to his high position.

An additional cause of sorrow to the Holy Father was the enactment of the
Italian Legislature, known as the _Mancini law_. This law was in downright
opposition to the _law of guarantees_. It made it a crime to preach the
Gospel. On pretence of repressing the abuses of the clergy, their offences
against the laws and institutions of the State, it forbade all apostolic
preaching. It was too late. Nero, even, was not in time, and all the fury
of persecution could not uproot the belief in virtue which prevailed. The
clergy shall no longer say that fraud, robbery, lying, violence and
assassination are sins. But _cui bono_? The world has already its
convictions—prejudices, the philosophy of _Kulturkampf_ may call them—in
regard to all such things, and no law that an infidel parliament can enact
will suffice to eradicate them. It could only sadden the heart of the
Chief Pastor to see the power which ruled in his country and in his stead
laboring so strenuously but ineffectually to demolish the edifice of the
church, which, for so many ages, had been assailed in vain. It was the
height of presumption, surely, when a few modern Italians, a miserable
minority of their own nation, undertook a task which defied all the power
of Imperial Rome. In a country where liberty is better understood, a
powerful voice was raised in condemnation of the _Mancini law_. The
British _Catholic Union_ protested against the cruel enactment as an
attack not only on the liberty of the Church but also on the very
existence of the Christian faith in Italy. This purpose was, indeed,
avowed by many of its supporters in the Italian parliament.

Pius IX. could not fail to protest against such an attack on that liberty
which is the birthright of every Christian. In a Consistorial Allocution
of 12th March, 1877, he exposed the plot which the revolutionists had
prepared in order to prevent the Holy Father from accomplishing his
appointed mission—that of instructing and edifying the whole flock of
Christ. That his protest was fully justified and demanded by the
circumstances of the case was abundantly shown by the rage which it
excited among the ruling faction. Their press did its best to dissemble,
and affected to treat with contempt the Pope’s address. It contained only
“lame and doubtful reasonings—such arguments as are termed paralogisms or
involuntary sophisms, which escape the notice of their authors.” The
government, in unison with the press, sought to stifle the importunate
voice of the Pontiff. The council of ministers went so far as to resolve
on prosecuting any journals that should dare to publish the Papal
allocution. But they found it was too late. The obnoxious document was
already printed in France, and, consequently, open to the civilized world.
So the wrath of the ministry was allowed to cool. It sought, nevertheless,
to be revenged. The minister of justice, accordingly, addressed a circular
to the procurators-general, in which he denounced the language of Pius IX.
as “excessive and violent.” The Pope himself he railed was a factious
person, as a fomenter of sedition and revolt. He also charged him with
ingratitude. For what was he ungrateful? Had they not robbed him of his
sovereignty and his property? Did they not now hold him closely guarded in
the Vatican? They spared his life, indeed, but made him understand that he
was their prisoner, as, in reality, he was. To have gone farther would
have been to outrage all Italy, which they were so anxious to conciliate,
and the great Powers, whose forbearance they so much needed. Cardinal
Simeoni, who had succeeded Antonelli as Secretary of State, in a circular
addressed to the Papal nuncios, pointed out the weakness and gross
injustice of Mancini’s letter. The secret societies, on the other hand,
congratulated their most dear and most active _brother_, and expressed the
hope _that he would not stop until he reached the end to which he so nobly
tended_. The minister of justice fully acceded to the wishes of the
_brethren_, and they could rely upon it that he would persevere until he
compassed the destruction of the Papacy. Such good resolutions deserved a
reward. They awarded him, accordingly, what they called a _diploma of
honor_.

The _Mancini law_, notwithstanding all the efforts of its supporters,
never became law. There is not much in this history to be placed to the
credit of Victor Emmanuel. Nevertheless, he, all of a sudden, opposed the
enactment of the odious law which he had allowed to be prepared and
presented in his name to the representative chamber. By expressing his
repugnance to it, he caused it to fail in the Senate. It is related that
it was on the representation of his daughter, the Princess Clotilde, that
he so acted.

PLAN FOR ELECTING A POPE.

One of the most daring enterprises of the Italian ministry was their
scheme, in conjunction with the Prussian chancellor, for the election of a
Pope on the demise of Pius IX. Hitherto, when the Popes enjoyed their
temporal sovereignty, the Cardinal Camerlingo, or high chamberlain,
directed everything from the time of the Pope’s decease until the election
of a successor. It was the purpose of the ministry to arrogate to
themselves the attributes of this high dignitary, who acted, temporarily,
as the Sovereign of Rome. For the attainment of their end, fraud, lying
and forgery were freely had recourse to. It being understood that there
existed a Bull relating to the election of Pius the Ninth’s successor, and
that it was in the custody of Mgr. Mercurelli, the Secretary of Pontifical
briefs, a high price was offered to any one who should treacherously
deliver it into the hands of the revolutionists. Such a temptation was not
to be resisted. A cunning scribe, who could imitate the handwriting of
Mercurelli, made a copy of an ancient Bull of Pius VI., adapting it to the
circumstances of the time. To the great confusion of the astute chancellor
and his associates, the Italian ministers, the forgery was discovered, and
the sage statesmen befooled in the sight of all Europe by a common felon.
Nothing, however, was to be left undone that was calculated, as the
conspirators conceived, to secure the election of a Pope who would reject
the decisions of the Vatican Council. For this end it was proposed to take
military possession of the Vatican Palace, and appoint a commissioner to
superintend the election and carry out the views of the faction. This
iniquitous plot appears to have been overthrown by a vigorous article
which was published in the _Osservatore Romano_. It is said to have been
inspired by Pius IX. It stated, among other things, that “the Vatican
changes not with the changes of the times, and the Lord, who has protected
it in the past, and given visible proofs of His continued protection, will
protect it in the future, and defend it against all, whatever artifices,
whether secret or open, its enemies may employ, in order to conquer and
overthrow it.” The revolutionary journals, whose constant cry was “war to
the knife” on the Church and the Papacy, could not refrain from expressing
their astonishment, it ought to be said their admiration, of this masterly
document. “It is impossible,” said the _Republique Francaise_ of 28th
July, 1877, “not to be struck by the tone of authority, the vehemence and
the menaces, the ardent and deep-rooted faith which prevail from beginning
to end of this extraordinary production.”

ILLNESS OF THE POPE—VICTOR EMMANUEL AT THE VATICAN.

In the autumn of 1877, the health of Pius IX. began to fail. He caught
cold and had a renewal of rheumatic attacks. He was obliged, in
consequence, to discontinue giving audiences. Finally, by the advice of
his physicians, he kept his bed continuously for three weeks, from 20th
November. The Pope’s indisposition appears to have been quite a God-send
to the ever-busy press of the hostile faction. There were, of course,
spasms, fainting fits, mortification of the extremities, etc. The Pope is
dying—the Pope is dead!—and the enemy rejoiced, as over a hard-won
victory. But the end was not yet. The Holy Father recovered, and was able
to hold a Consistory and deliver an allocution on the 28th of December.

There was one at Rome who felt differently from the party with whom he
acted in regard to the illness and possible death of the Pope. This was no
other than King Victor Emmanuel. The dethroned Pontiff was still a power
that helped to stem the tide of red republican revolution which rolled so
angrily against the tottering throne of united Italy. The barrier was in
danger. Only the slender thread of an exhausted life saved it from giving
way. The king was awe-struck, and sought comfort in the Palace of the
Vatican.(15)

What passed at the extraordinary interview none will ever know. All that
can be found on record is that the King of Italy retired with a lightened
heart from the mansion of the Sovereign Pontiff. Pardon, benediction,
renewal of promises—what may there not have been? That the meeting was not
without result, an event which was not at that time far distant clearly
shows.

The restoration of Pius IX. to comparative health was matter for
thanksgiving and congratulation. A consistory was held, accordingly, on
the 28th of December, 1877. The cardinals having assembled, the Holy
Father thus addressed them: “We rejoice in the Lord at having experienced
how faithfully you sustain the burden of the apostolic ministry; and, at
the same time, for having enjoyed the sweet consolation to find the
sorrows of our soul alleviated by your virtue and the constant affection
of your charity.” The venerable Pontiff concluded this address, which was
destined to be his last in solemn consistory, by inviting the members of
the Sacred College “to offer up their prayers assiduously to the throne of
Divine mercy for himself and for the Church,” representing that the
strength of Christians is in prayer, in the power of God, which the prayer
of His creature, made in his image, causes to be exerted. And who is
stronger than God? _Quis ut Deus?_

The aged Pontiff, whom the revolutionists of Italy and other countries
cried out against with such vehemence of hatred and malediction, asked no
other favor for himself of the Supreme Giver than the pleasure to impart
once more his benediction from the Vatican to the city and the whole
world. On occasion of some foreign ladies resident at Rome coming to
present him with a rich canopy for decorating the Vatican lodge, at the
benediction he gave utterance to the following prayer: “Lend new strength,
O Lord, to Thy Vicar on earth; give new vigor to his voice and to his arm,
in order that, in the present crisis, it may be permitted him, as a sign
of reconciliation and peace to bless once more solemnly the whole Catholic
people, and that thus, through Thy assistance, society may be restored to
a state of tranquillity and the practice of all the Christian virtues.” He
adored, without knowing it, the Divine will, which was not that he should
ever again impart his apostolic benediction from the Vatican. This he knew
not, and could not pretend to know. But he was comforted in the firm
belief that the benediction would never cease to be dispensed. On the same
day, he said, addressing the Roman ladies who presented a carpet for the
solemn benediction: “At this time of darkness and tribulation, when we are
in the power of our enemies, you may say to me: ‘We have exerted ourselves
so much, we have offered up so many prayers, shed so many tears, and,
notwithstanding, all to no purpose.’ The time will come when this present
will be made use of. _Tota nocte laborantes_.... The Romans have, indeed,
prayed. They have given signal proof of their fidelity and their piety,
amid the gloom and trouble of our national catastrophes, and why have
they, as yet, obtained nothing? But what do I say? Are those evidences of
affection which every day reach the Holy See to be reputed as nothing? Is
that earnestness of prayer which prevails at Rome and throughout the
Catholic world to no purpose? In the most desert regions and remotest
countries vows and prayers are offered up for our deliverance. Your
prayers and communions are so many petitions, laid at the foot of the
altar, which cannot fail to be heard. As our Lord, who was pleased to show
Peter where to cast his nets, in order to have an abundant draught of
fish, teaches us also how we shall escape from the abyss of calamity into
which our sins, perhaps, have thrown us.... Although I, who, at present,
am the Vicar of Christ, may not, one of my successors will, see Rome,
which is our city, restored to its pristine state, tranquil and
flourishing as it was some months ago. He will also behold all the rights
of this Holy See completely recovered.”

By one of two things only, as far as man can see, is it possible that
Italy should be emancipated from its present bondage, and governed
according to the wishes of its people. A constitutional monarchy, such as
Pius IX. sought so long to establish, would be the most secure and
permanent guarantee for peace and liberty in the south of Europe. A remedy
for present evils may also be found in a thoroughly representative system
of government, which the system that prevails for the moment in Italy has
no claim to be. There cannot, however, be representative government so
long as the Italian people allow a reckless faction, which is only a small
minority of the nation, to control the elections, monopolize the votes,
and constitute themselves the legislature of the country. Patience is a
virtue. But it may be abused. It certainly has been so in the case of
Italy, and by a base conspiracy. When will the people arise in their
might, and, by their immense superiority in numbers as well as
intelligence, cast off the yoke of the conspirators—the incubus which
crushes and degrades them in the eyes of mankind?

KING VICTOR EMMANUEL SANCTIONS ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE FUNERAL OF PIUS
IX.—DEATH OF VICTOR EMMANUEL.

On the 29th December, 1877, King Victor Emmanuel came to Rome on business
of the State, as if the city of the Popes were _de jure_ as well as _de
facto_ his capital. On the 31st of the same month, his ministers induced
him to affix his royal signature to some new acts of brigandage and
usurpation, which they had prepared, but which could not be accomplished
until the death of Pius IX. At the same time, a decree regulating the
funeral of the Pope was drawn up and signed by the king. Royal honors were
to be restored, but only when they could not be enjoyed. The Holy Father,
although stripped of his sovereignty in life, was to be honored when dead
as a sovereign prince. It was appointed that mourning should be worn
throughout all the Kingdom of Italy. Court liveries, even, were got ready,
and also the minutest details of mourning apparel. Nothing was wanting but
death—and death came—but not the death that was so ardently desired.
Scarcely had Victor Emmanuel signed the funeral decree, which was intended
to be, at the same time, the death-warrant of the Papacy and the Church,
when he was taken suddenly ill. He was anxious to leave Rome, where his
stay was always as short as possible, but was detained by the receptions
of New Year’s day, and in order to attend a diplomatic dinner on the 6th
of January. On that very day, a three-fold malady laid him on his
deathbed. He became at once the victim of pleuro-pneumonia, together with
the fatal malaria and miliary fevers. There was no hope of his recovery.
To leave Rome was impossible. “Carry me hence, at any rate,” cried the
dying king, in an agony of horror; “I must not die at the Quirinal.” It
was too late. The physicians would not allow him to be moved. Unhallowed
force placed him in the sacred palace of the Conclave. Greater force held
him there. The prince who said, “We are at Rome and at Rome we shall
remain,” was doomed to die at Rome. After death, too, he must remain at
Rome, notwithstanding the wishes of all his kindred and of his son and
successor. The new king expressed to a deputation of the municipality of
Turin with what pain he made the sacrifice which policy required. The
policy of the revolutionary faction would not allow Victor Emmanuel to
have his last resting-place with his ancestors at the Superga. Policy
forbade that death even should liberate him who was called the liberator
of Italy. Policy hoped to perpetuate usurpation, by holding the usurper in
the usurped capital. The dead king remained in death, as he had ever been
in life, the captive of the faction.

As soon as Pius IX. became aware of the critical state of King Victor
Emmanuel, he sent to him his own chaplain, Bishop Marinelli, with full
authority to reconcile the dying monarch to the church on his expressing
repentance and retracting. This dignitary went thrice to the palace, and
was as often repelled by the watchful ministers, who strictly guarded the
person of the king. They dreaded lest so public a retractation as he was,
at the time, able to make, and as would have been required, should prove
injurious to their schemes. Later, when there was no hope of recovery,
anxious that the king should have the credit of being at peace with the
Church, they allowed his own chaplain, the Rev. Signor Azenio, to approach
his bed-side. This worthy priest, being fully authorized, heard the
confession of King Victor Emmanuel, and administered to him the Sacraments
of the Church. As the most Holy Sacrament was borne to the monarch’s
deathbed, Prince Humbert, Princess Margaret, and, together with them, ten
ministers and dignitaries of the Court, bearing lighted torches,
accompanied the priest: and as Victor Emmanuel received the Viaticum and
Extreme Unction, they all fell upon their knees. (9th January, 1878.) This
conclusion, so consoling to the departing soul, was gall and wormwood to
the worldly ministers. The founder of United Italy, before he could have
the benefit of the last sacred rites, prayed to be pardoned all his crimes
against the Sovereign Pontiff and the Church. By acknowledging and
condemning his faults, he also condemned the unhallowed work which was
forwarded by so much usurpation and sacrilege. The Christian-like end of
Victor Emmanuel did not meet the views of the ministers. (_Osservatore
Romano_ of 10th January.) Accordingly, they endeavored immediately to
lessen its effect on the public mind. Their journals, unable to deny the
truth, even acknowledging the benefit they had by the king’s confession
and communion, cunningly labored to counteract the same by the grossest
misrepresentation. They related that the king, at the moment of his death,
had spoken both as a Christian and an infidel revolutionist. They made him
thus retract his retractation. “In all that I have done, I am conscious of
having always fulfilled my duties as a citizen and a prince, and of having
done nothing against the religion of my ancestors.” As his conscience was
thus at ease, for what did he beg pardon of the Sovereign Pontiff and the
Church? Of what could he repent who acknowledged no sin?

_L’Osservatore Romano_, in reply, reiterated all that it had already
stated on the highest authority. “Let there be an end, once for all,” said
this excellent journal, “to the profane language which dares rashly to
intervene between the dying man and his God, of whom the priest is the
representative. The Church, appealed to on so short a notice, and in the
awful hour of the death agony, mercifully extends her hand to him who is
about to approach the presence of the Sovereign Judge, and opens to him,
as far as possible, the way of salvation; but she strictly sees to it that
her holy laws be fully observed.” Policy makes laws which it violates as
easily as it makes them. The Church can never break her laws, which are of
Divine origin. Victor Emmanuel, accordingly, must have submitted to the
laws of the Church, in order to be reconciled to the Church, to Pius IX.
and to God.

At the death of the king the revolutionists were struck with
consternation. “Victor Emmanuel is no more!” said the _Liberta_, “and
Italy is like a warrior without his sword.” They all felt as if the
edifice which they had raised were falling to pieces. They took no blame
to themselves, however. They ascribed not to their folly or their
wickedness the danger which threatened them. “God is unjust,” said one of
the party, as he announced to the Romans the king’s death. Considering the
term of human life, it was no doubt unjust, to remove from this world a
man at the advanced age of eight-and-fifty years! Another, as the remains
of the “father of his country” were borne to the Pantheon, blasphemously
exclaimed: “That everlasting Pantheon! so long the altar of inanimate
gods—now the temple of a hostile _Deity_!”

Although Pius IX., with his usual goodness and consistency, authorized the
clergy to take part in the funeral of the deceased king, thus according
what was due to the honor of a Christian who had been reconciled to God
and the Church, the ceremony which, otherwise, would have been so solemn,
was sadly marred by processions of secret societies, Grand Orients and
Garibaldians, which followed the funeral car to the Church of St. Mary of
the Martyrs.(16)

The Pantheon was not too grand for so great a king. It was only fitting
that he who had lent himself to the baleful work of paganizing modern Rome
should have his final resting-place in the temple that was so long sacred
to Rome’s heathen _deities_.

The Holy Father had so well recovered from his illness, and his health was
so good during the months of December and January, 1877-78, that he was
able to transact business daily with the cardinals, heads of congregations
and other prelates. It was for him the revival—the lucid interval—which so
often precedes the final scene. Notwithstanding the pompous obsequies
which the late king had prepared for Pius IX., the venerable Pontiff still
lived, and was able to protest against the pretensions of the successor of
that king, and to defend against his usurpation the Church and her
inalienable rights. The proclamation of King Humbert was met by a protest
addressed to all the Powers from the Cardinal-Secretary of State, and Pius
IX. himself raised his voice in order to vindicate publicly those writers
who had spoken the truth concerning the deceased prince. The whole world
was moved by the solicitude of the Holy Father in laboring so as that
Victor Emmanuel should die as became a Christian, and in providing that
his funeral should be conducted according to the consoling ceremonial of
the Church. It now became his duty to take care lest the irreconcilable
enemies of religion should succeed in availing themselves of these
circumstances in order to deceive and induce mankind to believe that the
Godless revolution was in sympathy with Pius IX. and the Church. The
venerable Pontiff was still able to take to task the indiscreet writers
who, from mistaken zeal, maintained that such an incongruous coalition had
taken place or was possible.

A very great number of people of all ranks conceived the happy idea of
celebrating the seventy-fifth anniversary of Pius the Ninth’s first
communion. This afforded another great occasion for uniting in prayer all
over the wide extent of the Catholic Church. The _fete_ occurred on the
2nd of February, “Candlemas day,” or the purification of the Blessed
Virgin. The Holy Father was able, all exhausted as he was, to leave his
couch, celebrate Mass, and even repair to the throne-room of the Vatican,
where he performed the ceremony of distributing blessed tapers to the
cardinals, bishops and heads of religious orders. He spoke also with his
accustomed eloquence to those whom it gave him so much pleasure to see
gathered around him. He addressed himself particularly to the parish
priests of Rome, recommending above all things to their pastoral
solicitude, the children of the city who bore so important a part in the
celebration of the anniversary. He expatiated on the value of Christian
education, and exhorted the pastors to stir up the zeal of parents. His
apostolate had begun with children in the happy days of _Tata Giovanni_.
It was only fitting that his last exhortation should be all in their
interest and for their happiness.

All, in expressing his gratitude for the prayers that were offered in his
behalf, he asked was that they should be continued, hoping always “that He
who had commenced a good work would not fail to bring it to a successful
termination.” But it is not given to man to complete or perfect anything
in this life; and that pontificate of thirty-two years, which was still
more astonishing by its acts and labors than by its long duration, was
destined to leave its good work incomplete. It will be continued,
nevertheless, and men will be made to understand that it is not alone
Mastai’s work, or any man’s work, but the cause of Him who guides, with
irresistible power, the destinies of mankind.

Pius IX., however, had accomplished his appointed task. He had celebrated,
and with a wonderful renewal of health, his last festival and his last
anniversary. Four days later, in the evening of the 6th February, he was
seized with a slight attack of fever, which caused no alarm. It was the
prelude, however, to more serious attacks, which shortly succeeded one
another in rapid succession till the moment of his death. At four o’clock
in the morning a potion was administered, in order to soothe the feverish
agitation of the patient. Its good effect was only of short duration. As
his physician entered, “this time,” said he, “my dear doctor, all is
over.” He did not share the hopes of those who attended the celebration of
Candlemas day. He understood that his last hour on earth was near at hand,
and he requested that the Holy Viaticum and Extreme Unction should be
administered.

As soon as the doleful tidings reached the city, the people were bid to
prayer by a general ringing of the bells. Great numbers of the faithful
sought the approaches to the Vatican. Many entered and crowded the halls
and ante-chambers of the palace, offering up their prayers, with abundance
of tears, as Bishop Marinelli, whom, only one month before, Pius IX. had
sent to assist King Victor Emmanuel, conveyed the Viaticum to the chamber
of death and administered the Sacraments. As the malady increased it
attacked the lungs (not the brain, as the infidel newspapers falsely
represented),(17) rendering difficult and painful the breathing of the
patient. Nevertheless, Pius IX. calmly and distinctly repeated the prayers
for the dying, which Cardinal Bilio had begun to recite. At the end of the
Act of Contrition, he said, with great humility and confidence, “_Col
rostro adjuto_”(18) and expressed his Christian hope, saying, “_In Domumm
Domini ibimus._”(19) As the cardinal, bathed in tears, hesitated to
pronounce the words of final adieu—“_Proficiscere anima
Christiana_”(20)—the Holy Father inspired the courage so necessary at the
hour of separation, be, himself uttering the words, “_Si Proficiscere_.”
He must bless, once more, the Sacred College, the members of which were
all kneeling around him. Cardinal Bilio, in their name, asked him to
impart his blessing. Extending his right hand, he blessed them for the
last time. Scarcely had the hand that had been so often raised in blessing
mankind fallen on the couch when the eyes became dim. A little before four
o’clock the death agony commenced. A few moments before six Pius IX.
ceased to live.

“Eternal rest give to him, O Lord,” devoutly said the cardinal, “and may
perpetual light shine upon him.” These words conveyed the mournful fact
that Pius IX. lived no more. They were, at the same time, the occasion of
an outburst of love and devotedness, which showed that this wonderful Pope
still commanded in death that affection which, in his lifetime, had been
often so gloriously manifested.

Cardinals, prelates, nobles, people of Rome, guards and servants,
struggled and crowded on each other, in order to press, once more,
forehead and lips on those sacred hands which could never more be raised
to bless them. It was a singularly affecting scene. The wail of sorrow and
the unfeigned expression of esteem and love arose also as the tidings
spread throughout the wide extent of the Catholic world.

The deceased Pontiff needs no eulogium. His memory will be as green
throughout the centuries to come as on the day of his decease. It is
impossible, however, to avoid calling to mind the words of Saint Cyprian,
spoken in praise of Pope Cornelius, and most appropriately applied by the
pious and learned Bishop of Poitiers to Pius IX: “After a promotion which
he had neither desired nor sought, but which was due to him alone who
makes Pontiffs, what activity from the first moment he was in office! what
boldness of initiative! And, what we must chiefly consider and praise,
what strength of faith and what courage in having perseveringly and
intrepidly held the sacerdotal chair at Rome, at a time when, through
opposition to the priesthood, were uttered such fearful threats, and when
the Powers of the world were more inclined to undergo any kind of reverse
rather than that the Priest of God should occupy at Rome a throne which
was the rival of their earthly throne. If, in the midst of so much
agitation, the power of the Lord evidently protected the priest whom he
had chosen, that priest, nevertheless, in resisting, suffered all that it
was possible to suffer, and overcame, by his priestly energy, those for
whom were in store other and ulterior defeats.”

ST. CYPRIAN, Epist. LII, _ad Antonianum_.

The death of Pius IX., long so ardently desired by the Italian ministry,
came upon them unawares at last. They had no scheme or plot in readiness,
to thwart the action of the cardinals in the election of a successor to
the Pontificate.(21) The Conclave, accordingly, assembled in due course,
and, on the third day of its meeting, elected to the Chair of Peter
Cardinal-Archbishop Pecci, Bishop of Perugia, who will be known in history
as LEO XIII.

—FINIS.—






FOOTNOTES


   M1 Further violence.—Attack on the Holy Father.—Murder of Monsignore
      Palma.

    1 In 1855 the Bonaparte family were without a name in that Europe
      where they had possessed so many thrones. One man had compassion on
      them, and acted generously, Pius VIII. welcomed them to his States.
      A member of this family, Lucien Bonaparte, Napoleon’s brother,
      having always shown great faithfulness to the Holy See, Pius VIII.
      conferred upon him the title of a Roman Prince and the principality
      of Canino. Lucien’s son has not been gifted to walk in the footsteps
      of his honorable father. Balleydier, in his history of the Roman
      revolution, thus portrays him: “Versed in dissimulation, Charles
      Bonaparte had, under the preceding Pontificate, acted two very
      opposite characters. In the morning attending in the ante-chambers
      of the Cardinals, in the evening at the Conciliabula of the secret
      Societies, he labored to secure, by a double game, the chances of
      the present and the probabilities of the future. He had often been
      seen going piously to the Vatican even, to lay at the feet of
      Gregory XVI. homage which his heart belied.” No doubt, in 1847 and
      1848, he thought himself an abler man than his father, as he
      marched, poignard in hand, at the head of the malcontents of Rome.

   M2 The Pope abandoned by his people. The Pope protests against the
      Socialist ministry and its acts.
   M3 Unsettled state of the European nations.
   M4 Pius IX. retires to Gaeta.
   M5 Treacherous conduct of sworn servants of the Papacy.
   M6 Sentiments and declarations of the Revolutionists.
   M7 What the world thought of the proceedings at Rome.
   M8 The Catholic Powers resolve to reinstate the Pope.
   M9 Dutiful conduct of Ferdinand of Naples, towards the exiled Pope.
  M10 Action of the Powers delayed. Prince Louis Napoleon repudiates the
      conduct of the Prince of Canino.—Declares for the temporal
      sovereignty.
  M11 Several Powers undertake to restore the Pope. France sends an army
      to Rome. Treachery of the Roman populace. Determination to besiege
      Rome. The siege delayed by diplomatic manœuvres.
  M12 Excesses of the Revolutionists.
  M13 The King of Naples and the Spaniards offer to assist the French.
  M14 Rome surrenders to the French.
  M15 Colonel Niel despatched to Gaeta with the keys of the city.
  M16 Letter of Pius IX. to General Oudinot.
  M17 General Oudinot repairs to Gaeta and invites the Pope to return to
      his Capital.
  M18 The French Republic tries to coerce the Pope.—Letter to Colonel
      Edgar Ney.
  M19 Address of Montalembert to the National Assembly of France.
  M20 The Municipality of Rome invites the Pope to return.
  M21 The Pope returns to Rome.
  M22 State of religion in countries affected by the Photian schism and
      the Mahometan imposture.

    2 This danger is past.

  M23 French colonies and foreign missions—Africa.
  M24 German associations of Pius IX.—State of religion in Germany.
  M25 Degeneracy of Spain and Portugal, and their colonies—Restoration
      under the auspices of Pius IX.
  M26 State of the Catholic Church in England prior to 1850.
  M27 Pius IX. restores the English Hierarchy.
  M28 Numbers and names of the new Sees.
  M29 Dr. Wiseman and thirteen other eminent persons raised by Pius IX. to
      the dignity of Cardinal.
  M30 Success of the English Hierarchy.
  M31 Increase of Catholics during the decade—1840-1850.
  M32 Wonderful growth of the Catholic Church in England during the
      Pontificate of Pius IX.
  M33 State of the Catholic Church in Holland anterior to the restoration
      of its Hierarchy in 1853.
  M34 Persecution in New Granada. Pius IX. remonstrates.
  M35 Persecution ceases at last in the Scandinavian countries.
  M36 Pius IX. sends a Catholic pastor to Stockholm.
  M37 Denmark—600 conversions.
  M38 Pius IX. establishes a Metropolitan See at Athens.
  M39 Germany—Wars against the Church.
  M40 An archbishop and other priests cruelly persecuted. Sustained by
      Pius IX. and finally by the people.
  M41 Pius IX. laments the state of religion in Sardinia.—Condemns the Act
      secularizing marriage.
  M42 Pius IX. puts an end to the celebrated Goa Schism in 1851.
  M43 Encyclical on the Immaculate Conception—1849.
  M44 Pius IX. solemnly promulgated the Dogma of the Immaculate
      Conception.
  M45 Disputes concerning the study of the ancient classics happily
      terminated by Pius IX.
  M46 Accident at St. Agnes. Narrow escape of Pius IX. and many eminent
      persons.
  M47 Piedmont seeks a French alliance against the Pope.
  M48 Pius IX. encourages Science and the Fine Arts—“Vindex antiquitatis.”
  M49 Lord Clarendon rebukes Count Cavour.
  M50 “_Motu proprio_.”
  M51 Donoso Cortez, in the Spanish Parliament, supports the Papal
      Sovereignty.
  M52 Lord Lansdowne, together with all the statesmen and States of
      Christendom, recognize the principles laid down in Pius the Ninth’s
      “_motu proprio_.”
  M53 Canonizations at Rome.—Two American Saints. Pius IX. erects four
      Metropolitan Sees in the United States.
  M54 New See of Laval.—Rennes becomes Metropolitan.—Restoration of the
      Chapter of St. Denis.
  M55 Napoleon desires to be crowned by the Pope. Pius IX. sponsor for
      Napoleon’s son.—Golden rose sent to the Empress.
  M56 Pius IX. godfather to Alphonso XII. of Spain.
  M57 Concordat with Austria.
  M58 Difficulties in Spain and Spanish countries. Errors of Gunther.
  M59 Pius IX. makes a progress through his States.—His popularity.
  M60 The Mortara case.
  M61 New Sees erected by Pius IX. in America.
  M62 Several names added to the number of the Saints.
  M63 Count Orsini attempts to murder the Emperor Napoleon III.
  M64 The war of 1859.—The legations severed from the states of the
      Church.

    3 Mr. Perkins, in his letter to the _Times_, makes out that they
      forced open the houses of the inhabitants to make them give up their
      wine, and that they got drunk.

  M65 The peace of Villafranca.
  M66 How the treaty was observed.

    4 Protocol, March 18th.

    5 “If we were to sift the pretensions of all our public men, to
      discover that one person who is necessarily best informed of the
      past and present state of Italy, and the causes and means that have
      produced the anarchy which now prevails over the greater part of
      that unfortunate peninsula, Lord Normanby would inevitably be the
      man for our purpose. His long residence in Italy, his intimate
      acquaintance with all that is there distinguished for literature,
      science, art and statesmanship, and his unquestionable liberality of
      sentiment, as a politician, give him a paramount claim to our
      respectful attention, and even to our confidence, when he comes
      forward to enlighten his countrymen, with respect to Italian
      affairs—a claim to which no other member of the legislature can have
      the slightest pretensions. He has, too, throughout a long public
      career, always maintained such an independence of character, and so
      nobly and generously subordinated his personal interests to his
      sense of public duty, as to entitle him as a right to our
      confidence, when he unbosoms himself either in print or in speech,
      of that knowledge which he has acquired by long study and experience
      in official and non-official life, and tells us important truths
      which it is necessary for us to know, in order to be able to form a
      correct judgment upon momentous passing events.”—_Weekly Register_,
      _February 11, 1860_.

  M67 The French Emperor connives at the violation of the Treaty.
  M68 A European Congress proposed for settling the affairs of Italy.
  M69 Diplomatic doctrine of non-intervention.
  M70 Tuscany, Parma, Modena and the Legations finally annexed to
      Piedmont. Price of the spoil.
  M71 Results of Revolutionary Government.
  M72 Garibaldi reappears.
  M73 Revolutionary reforms in Sicily, Naples, Lombardy, Modena, the
      Pontifical States, &c.
  M74 Revival of Peter’s pence.
  M75 The Pope forms an army.—Lamoriciere commands.
  M76 Duplicity of the French Government.—The Emperor of Austria
      restrained by his Council.—Lamoriciere’s force cut to pieces by the
      Piedmontese at Castelfidaro.
  M77 Further expression of opinion.—The Great Powers.
  M78 A Plebiscitum.—Umbria and the Marches of Ancona annexed to Sardinia.
  M79 The pamphlet La France, Rome et l’Italie.—Cardinal Antonelli’s
      reply.
  M80 First Italian Parliament. Victor Emmanuel proclaimed King of Italy.
  M81 Death of Count de Cavour.
  M82 The Lebanon Massacres.—Generosity of Pius IX.
  M83 Conversion of the Bulgarians.
  M84 The annexation to Piedmont of Umbria and the Marches publicly
      sanctioned by Napoleon III.
  M85 Piedmont seeks to reign at Rome.
  M86 The Piedmontese Government fills its coffers by plundering the
      church.
  M87 The Emperor Napoleon induced to modify his Italian policy.

    6 Whoever thinks to devour the Pope will die of indigestion. These
      words, though not very polite, proved to be prophetic.

  M88 Garibaldi defeated at Aspromonte.
  M89 Canonization of the Martyrs of Japan.
  M90 The Pope’s consistorial allocution to the assembled bishops. He
      denounces the errors of the time.
  M91 The Church in Poland persecuted. Pius IX. raises his voice in its
      behalf.
  M92 The revolutionists admire the courage of Pius IX.
  M93 The Russian Envoy insults the Pope.
  M94 Pius IX. insists on protecting the ex-King of Naples, and takes
      Napoleon severely to task.
  M95 An Emperor and Empress visit the Pope.
  M96 A Papal Nuncio sent to remind Maximilian of his promises made at
      Rome.
  M97 A further step towards the abolition of the Papal sovereignty.
  M98 The Syllabus.
  M99 Successful efforts of Napoleon III. to humble Austria.
 M100 Pius IX. devoted to the duties of his spiritual office.
 M101 Canonization, 1859. John Baptist de Rossi.
 M102 John Sarcander.
 M103 Benedict Joseph Labre.
 M104 Mixed schools—Ireland.
 M105 Troubles of the Church in Mexico.
 M106 Revolutionary aggression.—Treachery of the Italian Government.
 M107 Garibaldi invades the Papal states.
 M108 Murder of the Zouave music band.
 M109 French army ordered to Rome.
 M110 Character of Garibaldians—No sympathy with them.
 M111 The Maistre—Muller.
 M112 Garibaldian fanaticism.
 M113 Two murderers executed.
 M114 Pius IX. visits the wounded rebels.

    7 If Russia were a little more within the pale of civilization, it
      would be noted as an exception. Its bishops were not allowed to
      proceed to Rome.

    8 The number of prelates at Rome attending the council was never, for
      any length of time, the same. And writers give the numbers according
      to the time at which they noted them.

    9 The _left arm_ looking from the door of the Basilica, the _right_
      looking from the high altar. As was fitting, it was the Gospel side.

   10 According to the best statistics that can be found.

   11 There appeared at Munich, in 1874, an ingenious caricature. It
      represented the Prussian chancellor, endeavoring, with a Krupp gun,
      which he used as a lever, to overthrow a church emblem of
      Catholicism. Satan comes on the scene, and says: “What are you
      doing, my friend?” Bismarck, “This church embarrasses me; I want to
      upset it.” Satan, “It embarrasses me, too. I have been laboring 1800
      years to demolish it. If your Excellency succeeds, I pledge myself
      to resign my office in your favor.”

   12 A later estimate than at page 120.

   13 The late celebrated preacher, Dr. Cumming, also admitted the
      expansive power which is characteristic of the Catholic Church. And
      in doing so, he bore witness to its actual growth in his time. In a
      lecture delivered at Brentford, England, in 1860, he said: “He would
      do the priests of the Church of Rome the justice to say that a more
      earnest, energetic, a more industrious body he did not know in any
      portion of our church; they were laboring incessantly for what they
      believed to be the truth, and he would that he could say without
      success, but he was sorry to say _with great success_. He saw going
      over to the Church of Rome a section of the nobility and many
      ministers of our church. These were well instructed, and ought to
      have known better. In England, account for it as they could, it had
      made progress to such an extent, during the last twenty years, that
      it had doubled its churches and doubled its priests.”—Lecture at
      Brentford. England, 1860.

   14 Discourse delivered in the Church of St. Peter _ad vincula_, 1st
      June, 1877, by the Bishop of Poitiers.

_   15 La Captivite de Pie IX. par Alexander de St. Albin. Paris_, 1878.
      Pages 513 and 514.

   16 That _was_ the Pantheon, or temple of all the Gods. It is now the
      Church called _St. Mary of the Martyrs_ (_Sæ Mariæ ad Martyres_).

   17 Their purpose is sufficiently manifest. But the calumny did not
      avail them. Pius the Ninth’s last illness was of such a character as
      to render impossible congestion of the brain. He possessed to the
      end his mental faculties. And when the power of speech failed, he
      was still able to express his thoughts, which were clear and
      distinct, by looks and gestures.

   18 “With the aid of Thy grace.”

   19 “We shall enter into the House of the Lord.”

   20 “Depart, Christian soul.”

   21 The crisis in the Eastern question, the attitude of the Holy Father
      on the occasion of Victor Emmanuel’s sudden demise, the consequent
      devolution of the crown to a new sovereign, the scandal of the Prime
      Minister’s (Orispi’s) notorious criminality before the law
      necessitating his unwilling resignation and the fall of the
      ministry, the suddenness of the Holy Father’s decease; all these
      events and conditions, in their several degrees and kinds, made the
      moment at which it had to meet astonishingly propitious for the
      holding of the Conclave in the Vatican itself.