"When the two questions were brought before the Assembly, there were some timid members who thought the proclamation of the republic premature, and dangerous in the presence of the actual organization of Europe; but not a single vote was given against the act of deposition the right and the left mingled together. There was but one cry, The temporal power of the Papacy is for ever abolished.' "What is to be done with such a people? Can any free government arrogate to itself without crime and self-contradiction the right of forcing upon it a return to the past?

"Return to the past, please to remember, is organized disorder; it is the revival of the struggle of the secret societies; it is anarchy flung into the centre of Italy; it is reaction and vengeance engrafted upon the heart of a people which desires only to forget; it is a permanent torch of war thrown into the midst of Europe; it is the progress of extreme parties displacing the orderly republican government of which we are at present the organ.

"France cannot intend this, nor can her government, nor a nephew of Napoleon, especially not with the double invasion of Neapolitans and Austrians before their eyes. The pursuit of a hostile design at this time of day would have a tendency to remind people of the hideous combination of 1772 against Poland.

"At the same time, it would be impossible to carry it out with effect; for the flag which has fallen by the will of the people, could be raised again only over heaps of corpses, and over the ruins of our cities."

To these statements of M. Mazzini we cannot forbear adding the following memoranda of M. Lesseps himself, as to the probable result of a forcible occupation of Rome. It is dated May the 20th:

"Every body at Rome is agreed to repel the clerical adminis tration.

"If we mean to occupy Rome by force before we obtain from the Pope an explicit declaration on this subject, we shall only embarrass ourselves. That our soldiers will overcome the material obstacles is certain but this is the least of our difficulties. When we shall have entered Rome, after having overthrown the Republic, most assuredly the Holy Father will refuse to come back on such terms as we may see fit to impose upon him. On this side there is an absolute principle which knows of no compromise. M. de Harcourt agreed with me in this opinion at our very first conference. He told us he had given up all hope of obtaining any thing at Gaeta. On the other side there is likewise an absolute principle of a contrary character. It is only under the pressure of our forces that any ecclesiastical power, however temperate, will be submitted to. We shall have to maintain a permanent occupation, in order not only to uphold the restoration which our arms will have planted, but to restrain the manifestations of public opinion which will become daily more hostile to the temporal power.

"We shall therefore in the end lose our influence over all parties, that is to say, we shall make for a result diametrically opposed to that which suggested the motive for our expedition. Our exertions and our expedition will only have served to unite against us all the passions of Italy."

Six months have elapsed since the negotiations in which M. Lesseps took so active a part were abruptly broken off by the refusal of General Oudinot to recognise the convention agreed upon between him and the Triumvirate on the 31st of May. The sudden and unjustifiable attack made upon Rome, in consequence of this rupture, terminated, as M. Lesseps foresaw, in the fall of Rome before the superior power of the French forces. But the rest of his prognostication has likewise been fulfilled. The French army is still at Rome, and the Roman population is as determined as ever to resist the restoration of the ecclesiastical government in the Pontifical States. The Pope, on the contrary, refuses to be dictated to by France, and the Papacy continues who shall tell for how long-in exile.

Before we close this article, we must not omit to notice a fact which concerns us more nearly than any of the events and circumstances which have hitherto occupied our attention. We have found fault with the French government, because as a republican government, professing no religion, it undertook the restoration of the Pope, whose sovereignty has, as we have seen, no political basis, but rests entirely upon a religious theory not recognised by the constitution of the French republic. But what shall we say to the conduct of the Government of Great Britain, which is pledged by the coronation oath of the Sovereign, and by the oath of supremacy of the servants of the Crown, to repudiate the religious theory whereon the sovereignty of the Papacy over the Roman State is founded, as diametrically opposed to the truth of God, and which nevertheless officially recognises that sovereignty, together with its untrue foundation? We abstain from all comment upon the following facts, which are disclosed in the "Correspondence respecting the affairs of Rome," and which deserve to be generally known.

1. In the month of January last Her Majesty Queen Victoria addressed to the Pope a letter expressive of her interest and sympathy with his position. See the letter of the Pope's nuncio addressed to Lord Normanby, in which Her Majesty's letter is referred to. Correspondence, p. 8.

2. The British Secretary for Foreign Affairs is in constant diplomatic communication with Rome, not only indirectly through an English papist, who is the resident diplomatic agent at Rome, and forwards his despatches through the medium of the VOL. XII.-NO. XXIV.-DEC. 1849.

сс

British envoy at Florence, but directly by regular diplomatic communications between the British ambassador and the Pope's nuncio at Paris, between whom despatches are exchanged upon the same footing of mutual recognition as between any other diplomatic characters. The following documents clearly establish this fact:

"Paris, March 8, 1849.

"My Lord, I have the honour to transmit the copy of a note I have received from the Apostolic Nuncio, inclosing one which has been addressed by the Cardinal Antonelli to the Representatives of all friendly Powers, requesting them to co-operate for the purpose of re-establishing the papal authority at Rome.-The Marquis of Normanby to Viscount Palmerston, with inclosure. Correspondence, pp. 7. 14.

"Foreign Office, March 27, 1849. "My Lord, I have received your excellency's despatch of the 8th instant, transmitting to me the copy of a note which your excellency had received from the Apostolic Nuncio, inclosing the copy of the note which has been addressed by Cardinal Antonelli to the Representatives of all friendly Powers, requesting them to co-operate for the purpose of re-establishing the papal authority at Rome.

"I have to instruct your excellency to say to the Nuncio that Her Majesty's Government have received and have attentively considered the communication which he has made to them through your excellency, and that you are instructed to express to him the deep regret with which Her Majesty's Government have witnessed the differences which have arisen between the Pope and his subjects, the assassination of Count Rossi, the departure of the Pope from his capital and states, and the proclamation of a republic at Rome.

"The British Government is for many obvious reasons not desirous of taking an active part in any negotiations which may result from the application which the Pope has addressed to some of the Catholic powers of Europe, whose territories are nearer than Great Britain in geographical proximity to the Italian Peninsula. But the British Government will be much gratified if the result of those negotiations should be such a reconciliation between the Pope and his subjects as might enable the former, with the free good-will and consent of the latter, to return to his capital, and there to resume his spiritual functions and his temporal authority." -Viscount Palmerston to the Marquis of Normanby. Correspondence, P. 14.

3. The British Secretary for Foreign Affairs distinctly recognises the spiritual supremacy of the Pope, and, as a necessary consequence of it, his temporal sovereignty over the Roman States, and in such recognition makes special reference to the Pope's authority over a large portion of Her Majesty's subjects. Of this, also, we have documentary evidence :

"Foreign Office, January 5, 1849.

"In regard to the present position of the Pope, I have to observe, that no doubt it is obviously desirable that a person who in his spiritual capacity has great and extensive influence over the internal affairs of most of the countries in Europe, should be in such a position of independence as not to be liable to be used by any one European power as a political instrument for the annoyance of any other power; and in this view it is much to be wished that the Pope should be sovereign of a territory of his own."-Viscount Palmerston to the Marquis of Normanby. Correspondence, p. 3.

"Foreign Office, March 9, 1849.

Although Great Britain has not so direct an interest as France has in the ecclesiastical and political questions which arise out of the present relations between the Pope and the people of the Roman States, the British Government, nevertheless, cannot view those matters with indifference. Great Britain is indeed a Protestant state, but Her Majesty has many millions of Catholic subjects; and the British Government must therefore be desirous, WITH A VIEW TO BRITISH INTERESTS, that the Pope should be placed in such a temporal position as to be able to act with entire independence in the exercise of his spiritual functions."-Viscount Palmerston to the Marquis of Normanby. Correspondence, p. 6.

Where are we? and whither are we tending?

ART. VII.-The Saint's Tragedy; or, The True Story of Elizabeth of Hungary, Landgravine of Thuringia, Saint of the Romish Calendar. By CHARLES KINGSLEY, Junior, Rector of Eversley, with a Preface by Professor MAURICE. London: John W. Parker, West Strand. 1848.

So many are the "Shams" of this age, the would-be Prophets, ushered into the world with a trumpet-blast of mighty expectation, who prove, after all, to be mere dust and ashes, like the meanest of their forefathers, that we approached the work before us with its quaint and ambitious title and mystic preface, with no slight internal misgivings. We were not inclined to honour the impress of "Professor Maurice" with any indiscriminating act of homage; and we were exceedingly disposed to question the good taste of the poet, who should desire to be thus vulgarly patronized by a contemporary, somewhat better known than himself. Having perused the work before us, and convinced ourselves that it contains much which is both beautiful and valuable, our opinion remains unshaken, that the publication of this said preface "by Professor Maurice," is a very gratuitous act of pomposity, answering no end whatever, save the creation of an unavoidable prejudice, in the first place, against the bard, who could thus seek for a Professor's "Imprimatur."

We can well understand the editing of works of a religious character, whether devotional or controversial, by men long known to the public, whose names form a primary guarantee, at least, that the works in question will contain nothing heretical or positively injurious; but in the case of a dramatic poem like the one before us, we must altogether question the propriety of even such a course. But far more objectionable than such an editorship, which implies the withholding of the author's name for a time (sometimes a desirable and even unavoidable expedient, though this should be resorted to with caution), is the publication of a literary testimony of this nature, which appears to imply a degree of servility on the one side, and of vanity on the other, neither of which are to be tolerated. We are constrained to ask, in this instance, in what character Professor Maurice wishes to appear? whether as an orthodox theologian, commending this publication to the faithful, "more Episcoporum?" or as a critic, deeply versed in poetical literature, and pronouncing "ex Cathedra,