Garibaldienne, qui était provoquée, favorisée, et soutenue par le Gouvernement de Florence. Il déclara même solennellement du haut de la tribune, par l'organe de M. Rouher, que jamais l'Italie ne s'emparerait de Rome et des Etats laissés au Saint Père sous la protection du drapeau de la France. Je crois donc que le premier et peut-être le seul acte de bonne foi dont l'Italie puisse se vanter durant les dix dernières années a été d'avouer franchement l'intention de profiter, comme réellement elle l'a fait, de la guerre entre la France et la Prusse pour couronner la spoliation inique du Souverain Pontife. C'est du reste ainsi qu'elle s'était prévalue du principe de non-intervention pour entreprendre les usurpations dans toute la Péninsule.

Laissant donc de côté cette partie historique du document précité, je veux m'occuper ici de l'autre partie relative aux colloques entre l'Italie et le Saint Siége. Je demanderai avant tout quels furent les négociateurs dont on parle, à quelle époque ils sont arrivés à Rome, quelles propositions ils ont fait, avec qui ils ont traité. Et comme le principal appui qu'on donne à ces prétendus colloques consiste en une entrevue qui aurait eu lieu entre le feu Cardinal Santucci et l'Abbé Passaglia, je peux assurer, avec les documents originaux en main, que le Cardinal Santucci n'a jamais vu dans l'Abbé Passaglia un négociateur officiel ou officieux pour traiter au nom du Comte de Cavour, et que l'Abbé Passaglia ne s'est jamais donné pour tel; mais l'un aussi bien que l'autre se sont bornés à un échange d'idées tel qu'il peut avoir lieu entre deux personnes qui se connaissent. Il est faux du reste que le Cardinal se soit engagé à soumettre ou qu'il ait soumis au Saint Père un projet de conciliation sur la base de la pleine liberté de l'Eglise et de la complète cessation du pouvoir temporel. Il est encore plus faux que Sa Sainteté ait été frappée et convaincue de la sagesse de ces propositions, en les considérant encore comme une concession et un bénéfice de la part du Gouvernement de Turin. D'après cet exposé de faits, le Saint Père aurait donc regardé comme meilleure et plus acceptable cette spoliation complète de ses Etats que le projet, déjà repoussé auparavant, de confier au Roi Victor Emmanuel le Vicariat des Romagnes, sur lesquelles on aurait réservé au Saint Père un simulacre de souveraineté.

Ce qu'on ajoute relativement au dégagement du serment imposé aux Cardinaux, et dont le Cardinal Santucci et moi nous aurions été déliés par Sa Sainteté afin de pouvoir entreprendre, sur les bases indiquées, des négociations pour la cessation du pouvoir temporel, est donc une pure invention. Enoncer ces faits, c'est en démontrer l'impossibilité. Je ne suivrai pas l'auteur de ce récit officiel dans l'exposé des phases par lesquelles il fait passer ces négociations entre moi et les intermédiaires Italiens. Toute cette histoire ne paraît avoir d'autre fondement qu'un opuscule publié, il y a quelque temps, par un certain Abbé Isaia, qui était en relations avec le feu Cardinal D'Andrea, et par un certain Aguglia, avocat Sicilien, qui s'était rendu à Rome pour aplanir quelques difficultés surgies dans le Royaume de Naples au sujet de l'ordre Constantinien.

Si on veut toutefois apprécier la véracité de ces personnages et la nature des colloques que j'ai eus avec eux, on n'a qu'à consulter l'article du "Journal de Rome," qui a catégoriquement démenti leurs impudentes calomnies. Je m'en appelle simplement aujourd'hui aux paroles mêmes du document dont je m'occupe. Or, ce document dit que le 5 Avril, 1861, je déclarai que le Saint Siége, toujours résigné à subir la violence, ne consentirait jamais à traiter avec l'Italie, que la question du pouvoir temporel se rattachait de sa nature aux intérêts de toute la Catholicité, et que le Saint Siége attendrait des événements une solution conforme à ses droits et à ses désirs. Si cependant on désire un document public et solennel qui atteste de quelle manière le Saint Siége a considéré cette question, et quel jugement il a porté sur les faits accomplis et sur ceux qu'on menaçait d'accomplir encore à son détriment, de même que sur les principes professés et les actes du Gouvernement d'Italie, je citerai l'allocution que le Saint Pere a prononcée dans la consistoire du 18 Mars, 1861.

Mais à quoi bon produire des documents et des preuves incontestables? puisqu'il est publiquement connu que le Gouvernement de Florence même, pour tâcher de justifier ses procédés iniques, a toujours allégué la ténacité du Saint Père à refuser d'entrer en négociations et le non possumus opposé par Sa Sainteté à toute négociation qui n'eût pas pour but de rétablir pleinement ses droits souverains. D'autre part, ne voulant pas que les intérêts de l'Eglise eussent à en souffrir, Sa Sainteté n'hésita pas à exprimer son vif désir d'ouvrir des négociations afin de pourvoir de titulaires quelques-uns des nombreux siéges épiscopaux vacants en Italie et de régler en même temps d'autres affaires religieuses.

MM. le Commandeur Vegezzi et l'Avocat Tonello peuvent faire témoignage du bon accueil qu'ils reçurent ici, ainsi que notre sollicitude pour faire ce qui était possible afin d'atteindre le but désiré, de sorte que leur mission réussit à notre satisfaction commune. En outre, le Saint Père ne refusa pas de permettre aux diverses administrations pontifi

cales de s'entendre avec les administrations correspondantes de Florence, afin que, par des accords réciproques, les intérêts des habitants des deux pays limitrophes fussent favorisés quant aux douanes, à la poste, et au télégraphe; il poussa la condescendance jusqu'à diminuer le tarif des douanes pour l'entrée et la sortie des divers objets, faisant ainsi profiter l'Italie des avantages dont jouissait la France en vertu d'un Traité Spécial de Commerce.

Je rappellerai en outre que le Gouvernement Pontifical a toujours fait preuve du plus grand empressement en se prêtant aux services continus et presque quotidiens qui lui étaient demandés au nom d'Italie, d'abord par l'intermédiaire de l'Ambassadeur de France et ensuite par la Légation du Portugal, soit pour procéder à l'arrestation et à l'extradition des malfaiteurs réfugiés sur le territoire Pontifical, soit pour recevoir communication des actes des tribunaux civils ou criminels, soit pour hâter la solution des affaires pendantes dans l'intérêt de la justice, soit enfin pour rendre les services nombreux et variés qu'exigeaient la position et la condition respective des deux pays.

Tout ce qui précède prouve à l'évidence que, si le Saint Père, pour ne pas trahir sa conscience, violer ses serments, et sanctionner en quelque façon les principes injustes proclamés par le Gouvernement de Victor Emmanuel, refusa constamment et absolument d'en venir à des arrangements conformes aux vues de celui-ci, d'autre part cependant il ne manqua pas de faire bon accueil et de donner suite aux propositions et aux réformes qui étaient de nature à améliorer les relations de ses sujects avec ceux du royaume voisin ou à protéger les intérêts de l'Eglise. Ces dispositions démontrent à l'évidence que les difficultés rencontrées à Rome par le Cabinet Italien, et dont on fait un motif de reproche et d'accusation contre le Saint Père, avaient leur source dans un ordre d'ideés supérieur, mais non dans l'antagonisme étroit et mesquin qui anime parfois deux Gouvernements limitrophes, et qui, dans le cas présent, aurait été d'ailleurs pleinement justifié par des précédents inqualifiables.

Nous sommes donc confirmés dans la conviction que, à raison de l'état de choses existant entre les deux pays; à raison des relations des deux Gouvernements et de l'absence de tout motif réel ou même apparent qui justifie une invasion, chacun doit se persuader que les usurpations commises au préjudice du Saint Père et la captivité qu'on lui fait subir, après avoir bombardé la capitale même de ses Etats, revêtent un caractère particulièrement odieux, dont on ne trouve aucun exemple dans l'histoire du monde civilisé. La date même et le contenu du document auquel je réponds disent quelles étaient la bonne foi et les intentions du Gouvernement de Florence à l'égard des domaines du Saint Siége. Cette date montre que, dès le mois d'Août dernier, le Gouvernement avait déjà préparé ce qui devait s'accomplir le 20 Septembre sous un autre prétexte.

,

Comme je dois supposer que la circulaire et le document susdits ont été communiqués à M. le Ministre des Affaires Etrangères de je tiens à rectifier les idées inexactes qui pourraient lui en rester. En conséquence, j'autorise votre Seigneurie Illustrissime à profiter des reflexions qui précèdent, non-seulement pour combattre tant de fausses allégations, mais encore pour faire voir que le soin qu'on montre d'induire en erreur la bonne foi d'autrui est un indice certain de la conviction qu'on a de l'injustice de sa propre cause.

Agréez, &c.

(Signé) (Translation.)

Cardinal G. ANTONELLI.

Most Illustrious and Reverend Sir,

Rome, October 17, 1870.

A CIRCULAR of the 29th of August last, addressed by the Italian Government to its Representatives abroad, inclosed a printed document, which was confidentially communicated to me, and a manuscript copy of which fell into my hands by accident. This document gives a history of the pretended negotiations said to have been opened between the Government of Florence and that of France on the one side, and between the Government of Florence and the Holy See on the other, in regard to what is commonly called the Roman Question.

Having no precise and formal information in regard to the pretended negotiations with France, I am unable to state what may have passed on this head between the two Cabinets of Paris and Florence, or what amount of confidence can be placed in the various assertions of the document in question, or what ideas prevailed in the proposals exchanged between the two Governments. I could not, however, bring myself to believe that the conduct of His Majesty the Emperor of the French and his Government was such as is attributed to them. It is pretended that while their army was protecting the rights of the Holy See, and preventing the entire spoliation of the Holy Father, while

they protested that they were anxious for the cause of the Sovereign Pontiff, and loudly declared to France and the Catholic world that they were firmly resolved to defend, alone and against all comers, the temporal power of the Holy See, they were at the same time making known at Turin that they would take advantage of the vacancy of the Holy See, or of some other unexpected eventualities, to recall their troops without incon venience from the Pontifical States. That Italy, meanwhile, was to keep open her negotiations with Rome, in order to throw all the blame on the Holy Father; that the tranquillity of the Kingdom of Naples must be assured, and public opinion must be acted upon, and that the French Government would not cease to give to the Roman Question an attention entirely benevolent and friendly towards Italy.

Even if every other intrinsic argument failed, one fact of public notoriety would suffice to confirm me in this opinion, namely, that the Imperial Government absolutely refused to submit for the approval of the Holy See the famous project prepared by Baron Ricasoli. Another equally significant fact is that the Imperial Government opposed, by means of the new expedition of 1867, the Garibaldian invasion, which was provoked, favoured, and supplied by the Government of Florence. It even declared solemnly from the Tribune, by the mouth of M. Rouher, that Italy should never take possession of Rome and of the States left to the Holy Father under the protection of the flag of France. I believe, then, that the first and perhaps the only act of good faith which Italy can boast of during the last ten years has been the frank avowal of her intention to take advantage, as she has actually done, of the war between France and Prussia, to complete the iniquitous spoliation of the Sovereign Pontiff. It was, indeed, thus that she had availed herself of the principle of non-intervention to undertake usurpations in the whole Peninsula.

Setting aside, then, that historical portion of the above-mentioned document, I wish here to consider that other portion relative to the colloquies between Italy and the Holy See. Above all, I would ask, who were the negotiators spoken of? When did they arrive at Rome? What proposals did they make? With whom did they treat? And as the chief proof given of these pretended colloquies consists in an interview said to have taken place between the late Cardinal Santucci and the Abbé Passaglia, I can affirm from the original documents in my possession that Cardinal Santucci never considered the Abbé Passaglia as an official or semi-official negotiator to treat in the name of Count Cavour, and that the Abbé Passaglia never represented himself as such; but both confined themselves to an exchange of ideas, such as may take place between two acquaintances. It is, moreover, false that the Cardinal undertook to submit, or did submit, to the Holy Father a project of conciliation on the basis of the full liberty of the Church and the entire cessation of the temporal power. It is still more false that his Holiness was struck with and convinced of the wisdom of those proposals, considering them also as a conces sion and a benefit conferred by the Government of Turin. According to this statement of facts the Holy Father looked upon this complete spoliation of his States as better and more acceptable than the project, rejected already before, to confide to King Victor Emmanuel the Vicarship of the Romanias, over which a phantom of sovereignty was to be reserved to the Holy Father.

What is added relative to the release from the oath imposed on the Cardinals, and from which Cardinal Santucci and myself were said to be released by His Holiness so as to enter into negotiations for the cessation of the temporal power on the bases indicated, is therefore a pure invention. To state these facts is to show their impossibility. I will not follow the author of this official account into the statement of the phases through which he represents these negotiations between myself and the Italian intermediaries to have passed. The whole story does not appear to have any other foundation than a small treatise published some time ago by a certain Abbé Isaia, who was in communication with the late Cardinal D'Andrea, and by a certain Aguglia, a Sicilian advocate, who had come to Rome to settle some difficulties which had arisen in the Kingdom of Naples respecting the Constantine Order.

If, however, it is wished to estimate the veracity of those persons, and the nature of the colloquies which I had with them, we have only to refer to the article in the "Journal de Rome," which categorically contradicts their impudent calumnies. At the present time I merely appeal to the very words of the document which I am discussing. Now this document says that on the 5th of April, 1861, I declared that the Holy See, always resigned to submit to violence, would never consent to treat with Italy; that the question of the temporal power was by its nature connected with the interests of the whole Catholic world; and that the Holy See would await from events a solution in conformity with its rights and wishes. If, however, a public and solemn document is required,

showing in what manner the Holy See has regarded this question, and what was its opinion of the facts accomplished and those threatened to be carried out to its detriment, and also regarding the professed principles and acts of the Government of Italy, I will quote the Allocution which the Holy Father pronounced in the Consistory of the 18th of March, 1861.

But of what avail is it to produce incontestable documents and proofs; as it is publicly known that the Government of Florence itself, in order to justify its iniquitous proceedings, has always pleaded the tenacity of the Holy Father in refusing to enter into negotiations, and the non possumus opposed by His Holiness to all negotiation not having for its object the full re-establishment of his sovereign rights? On the other hand, not wishing that the interests of the Church should have to suffer from this, His Holiness did not hesitate to express his great wish to open negotiations in order to provide with titularies some of the numerous episcopal sees vacant in Italy, and at the same time to arrange some other religious matters.

Commander Vegezzi and the Advocate M. Tonello can bear witness to their good reception here, as well as to our anxiety to do what was possible to attain the desired end, so that their mission succeeded to our mutual satisfaction. Besides which the Holy Father did not refuse to allow the various Pontifical administrations to make arrangements with the corresponding administrations at Florence, in order that, by reciprocal agreements, the interests of the inhabitants of the two contiguous countries should enjoy advantages in respect to customs, posts, and telegraphs; he condescended so far as to lower the customs tariff for the import and export of various articles, thus allowing Italy to profit by the advantages enjoyed by France in virtue of a special Treaty of Commerce.

I would further call to mind the fact that the Pontifical Government has always given proof of the greatest readiness to afford the constant and almost daily facilities applied for in the name of Italy, at first through the medium of the French Ambassador, and later by the Portuguese Legation, either in the arrest and extradition of criminals who had taken refuge on Pontifical territory, or for the communication of civil and criminal judicial documents, or to hasten the settlement of pending questions in the interests of justice; or, finally, to render numerous and various services which the position and respective condition of the two countries require.

What I have said above proves clearly that if the Holy Father, in order not to betray his conscience, violate his oaths and in some way sanction the unjust principles proclaimed by the Government of Victor Emmanuel, consistently and absolutely refused to make arrangements in conformity with the views of the latter, on the other hand, however, he did not fail to receive favourably and give effect to the proposals and reforms which were of a nature to improve the relations of his subjects with those of the neighbouring kingdom, or to protect the interests of the Church. These arrangements prove that the difficulties met with at Rome by the Italian Cabinet, and which are made a cause of reproach and accusation against the Holy Father, originated in higher motive, but not in the narrow and mean antagonism which sometimes animates two neighbouring Governments, and which, in the present case, would have been fully justified by unqualifiable precedents.

We are, therefore, confirmed in the conviction that, by reason of the state of things existing between the two countries; by reason of the relations of the two Governments and the absence of any real or even apparent motive justifying an invasion, every one must see that the usurpations committed to the prejudice of the Holy Father, and the captivity which he has been made to undergo after the bombardment of the capital of his States, bear a peculiarly odious character of which no example is to be found in the history of the civilized world. The very date and contents of the document to which I am replying show what were the good faith and intentions of the Government of Florence with regard to the domains of the Holy See. That date shows that, so far back as last August, the Government had already prepared what was to be accomplished on the 20th September on another pretext.

As I must suppose that the above-mentioned Circular and document have been communicated to the Minister for Foreign Affairs of I wish to correct the false impressions which might have been made on him. I therefore authorize your most illustrious Lordship to make use of the above remarks, not only to combat so many false allegations, but also to show that the pains taken to lead into error the good faith of others is a sure sign of the conviction of the injustice of the cause.

Receive, &c. (Signed)

Cardinal G. ANTONELLI.

(Extract.)

No. 117.

Sir A. Paget to Earl Granville.—(Received January 4, 1871.)

Florence, December 30, 1870. AFTER three days' discussion the Senate yesterday adopted the Bill accepting the Roman plebiscite, which, as your Lordship is aware, has already been passed by the Chamber of Deputies.

No. 118.

Sir,

Earl Granville to Mr. Jervoise.

Foreign Office, January 5, 1871.

I HAVE received your despatch of the 21st ultimo, inclosing copies of letters addressed to you by Dr. O'Callagan, the Rector of the English College in Rome, with reference to the Royal Decree published in the "Official Gazette" of Rome of the 19th of November last, as affecting the interests of the religious establishments of foreign countries in the Roman States; and I approve of your having referred this matter to Sir A. Paget, and also of your having consulted your colleagues of the Diplomatic Body in Rome who have similar interests under their protection.

I am, &c.

(Extract.)

No. 119.

Mr. Jervoise to Earl Granville.-(Received January 7. 1871.)

Rome, December 30, 1870. THE telegram which I had the honour to address to your Lordship this morning briefly intimated the nature of the terrible calamity which has visited this city.

For some time past the weather has been very stormy, and at the beginning of the week the Tiber had become greatly swollen. In the course of Tuesday, the 27th, the waters penetrated into the lower portions of the town, but scarcely to a greater extent than occurs in the course of every winter. The wind, however, having changed its quarter, and the sea setting in heavily at the mouth of the river, so as to dan back the outflow, the waters rose rapidly during the night, and, early in the morning of the 28th, inundated the greater portion of the city.

A flood so great in its extent, and so disastrous in its consequences, has not occurred since the year 1806, since which date one extensive inundation only has taken place that of 1846. The latter, however, did not cover so great an extent of the town as the one this week, which has risen to 17.30 metres, above the level of the sea, or 9.677 metres above the average level, and 1.10 metres higher than the flood of December 10, 1846.

The waters having rapidly spread upwards, by 9 A.M. the Corso between the Porta del Popolo and the Piazza della Colonna became impassable even for carts, and very shortly afterwards the inhabitants of the Via Babuino, of two-thirds of the Via Condotti, and the parallel streets leading to the Piazza di Spagna, were imprisoned in their houses by a flood which attained, at their lower extremities, a depth of at least 4 feet.

Boats were brought up from the river, and rafts rapidly constructed by the Pontonieri, and from Wednesday morning to this evening (Friday) the troops quartered here, the National Guard, the Municipal Guard, the police, &c., have been on duty night and day assisting in releasing those who wished to leave their houses, in taking bread to others who chose to remain or could not escape from the upper stories, and in patrolling the city; for the gas, being extinguished, the only light at night was that afforded by oil lamps placed in the windows. The authorities, civil as well as military, have been on permanent duty, and their energy, promptitude, and unwearied exertions have won for them the admiration of all.

Guards were placed at the doors of such of the bakers' shops as remained beyond the reach of the flood, but the resources of these were soon exhausted, and it became necessary to apply to the neighbouring villages of Frascati and Albano for such supplies as they could furnish, which were brought into the city under escort.