The Express.
London, England, 1864-10-04 00:00:00

001IIIKRCIAL INTSLLIGII.NCE.

Grey skirtings and mule twist quiet. Cotton
dull. Dhollerah, 630 r. Malwa opium, 1,530 r.
Exchange on London, 2s. lid. Government Secu-
rities : Four per Cents., 93 ; Five per Cents., 102} ;
Five-and-a-Half per Cents., 110 i. Money easy.
Great speculation Las taken place in bank shares.
Freights for cotton to Liverpool, 50s.

CALCUTTA, Birr. 7.

Grey shirtings and mule twist quiet. Exchange
on London, six mouths, first-class credits, 2s. lad.
Government Securities : Four per Cents., 90+ ;
Five per Cents., 103 ; Five-and-a-lialf per Cents.,
111. Freights to London for seeds, 77a. 6d.

FRENCH DESPATCH ON THE ROMAN
QUESTION.

The Moidgeur of yesterday contains the following
despatch, which M. Drooyn de Limy', by "order
of the Emperor," recently addressed to Count de
ISartiges, the ambassador of France at Rome, and a
summary of which appeared in last evening's
Express :
Paris, Sept. 12.

Monsieur le Comte,—The position we occupy at
Rome has for a long time been a subject of the
most serious consideration to the Emperor's govern-
ment. Circumstances have appeared favourable to
us for examining anew the real state of things, and
we think it useful to communicate to the Holy See
the result of our reflections.

I need not remiod you of the considerations
which led the French flag to Rome, and which have
hitherto determined us to keep it there. We were
resolved 'lotto abandon that poet of honour until the
object of the occupation was obtained. Nevertheless,
we never thought that this situation was to be
permanent. We have always considered it ab-
normal and temporary. Eight years ago the chief
plenipotentiary of the Emperor at the Paris oon-
gresa described it in those terms. He added, in
conformity with your Majesty's orders, that we
longed with all our hearts for the moment when we
should bauble to withdraw our troops from Rome
without compromising the internal tranquillity of
the country and the authority of the Pontifical
government. On every occasion we have repeated
the same declarations.

At the commeucement of 1859 the Holy Father
had proposed the end of theyear for the evacuation of
the terntory guarded by our troops. The war which
then broke out in Italy having decided the Emperor
to renounce their recall, the same idea was renewed
as soon as events appeared to authorise the hope
that the Pontifical government would be able to
provide for in, own safety with its own
forces. Hence the understanding established in
1860, and in virtue of which the departure of the
French troops was to take place in the month of
August. The agitation which followed at that
period once again prevented the execution of a
measure which the Holy See desired as we did.
Hut the Emperor's government continued all the
same to see in the presence of our troops at Rome
an exceptions! and transitory fact, which, in a
mutual interest, we (ight to terminate as soon as
the safety and the independence of the Holy See
were secure against fresh dangers.
How many reasons, in fact, had we not for wish-
ing that the occupation should not be indefinitely
prolonged I It constituted as intervention con-
trary to 000 of the fundamental principles of our
public law and all the more difficult for us to
justify because our object in lending Piedmont
the support of our arms was so free Italy from
foreign intervention.
The oonseqiience of this situation moreover was
to place two distinct sovereiguties face to face upon
the same ground, and to be frequently thus the
cause of grave difficulty. The nature of things was
stronger here than Diai a will. Numberless changes
took place in the superior command of the French
army, and the same dimensions, the same conflicts
of jurisdiction, were always reproduced between
our generals-in-chief, whose first duty is evidently
Ito watch over the security of their army, and the
representatives of Pontifical authority, jealous of
maintaining in the acts of the home administration
the independence of the territorial sovereign.
To these inevitable inconveniences, which the
French agents who were the most sincerely devoted
to the Holy See did not succeed in removing, were
added those which fatally result from the difference
of political views. The two governments did not obey
the same inspirations, or proceed according to the
same principles. Our conscience too often com-
pelled us to give advice which that of the oonrt of
Home too often felt obliged to dechee. If we
insisted in too marked • manner we appeared to
abuse the strength of our position, and in that case
the pontifical government would lose, in public
opinion, the merit of the wisest resolutions. On
the other hand, by taking part in acts antagonistic
to our social state and the maxims of our legisla-
tion, we escape with difficulty the responsibility
of a policy we cannot approve. The Holy See,
by its very nature, has its ape ial codes and its
laws, which 00 many occasions are unfortunately
in opposition with the ideas of our own day.
Separated from Rome, we should certainly regret
to see it rigidly oppoeing them, and guided by
filial devotion, we should not, doubtless, be able
to maintain silence when such facts afforded • pre-
text for the accusations of its enemies. But our
pretrial at Rome, which creaks in this respect