The Express.
London, England, 1862-09-26 00:00:00

MGR WALDO AT LONDON BILIDON„

Ten
roaloazow—marning. 66m......i11imai5. AL Ufa

LONDON, FRIDAY, SRPTEMBER 26.

THE note in the Moniker on the Roman Ques-
tion is an act of reluctant homage on the part of
the most irresponsible Government in Europe to
the force of public opinion. It shows the uneasiness
"of the French Government at the universal con-
demnation of its Italian policy, and may be taken
as a proof that the EMPEROR feels his position in
Italy becoming so uncomfortable and untenable
as imperatively to require apology and defence.
In this view, as a pleading at the bar of Euro-
pean opinion, the official note has a certain amount I
of interest, but in other respects it is of little or
no value. It does not touch the real question at
issue, and except as a formal manifesto of the
French Government, the proposals it contains
would hardly merit serious notice. These pro-
posals are, indeed, so vague and so inconsistent,
that it is difficult to extract from them any in
telligible plan even of "conciliation." What they
verbally amount to may, however, be soon stated.
In the month of May last the EMPEROR.,
we are told, addressed • letter to M. Tsouve-
eL, maintaining the necessity for a policy
of conciliation, and proposing a combination on
the following basis :—" The POPE will lower the
" barriers which separate the pontifical territory
" from Italy, and Italy will give the necessary
" guarantees for the independence of the POPE."
" A double end (continues the EMPEROR'S letter)
" will be attained by a combination maintaining
" the POPE as master in his own domain, and'',
" lowering the barriers which at present separate
" the States of the Church from the rest of Italy."
To those who confront the actual facts of the case
this looks very like trifling, though very possibly
it may not have been so intended. No doubt a
double end would be secured if the tyrannical
owner of a slave plantation could remain master in
his own domain while the barriers that
separated the slaves from freedom were removed,
but whether they would obey, whether they would
freely submit to his hated rule, under these
altered circumstances, is doubtful. This is hardly
au extreme or exaggerated illustration of the posi-
tion in which the Pore stands to his subjects.
What are the " barriers " referred to in the
EMPEROR'S letter f The only " barriers which at
" present separate the States of the Church from
" the rest of Italy" are the sovereign authority of
the POPE in those States, supported by foreign
bayonets. If the Pors is to remain master in his
own dominions when those bathers are removed,
this could only be through the free choice of his
subjects. The EMPEROR accepts this necessary
consequence. "In order that the Pore may be
"master, he should be independent, and his sway
" should be freely accepted by his subjects." It
would seem impossible for any but a singularly
ignorant or romantic mind to contemplate
the possibility of such a result. But the
Imperial satirist not only expresses a sanguine
hope of its accomplishment, but points out the
way in which it is to be secured ;—" We must
" hope that it will be thus when Italy engages
" with Franco to recognise the privileges of the
" States of the Church, and when the Pore,
" returning to ancient traditions, shall recog-
" flute the privileges of the municipalities and
" provinces, so that they may govern themselves."
This is the EMPEROR'S scheme of conciliation.
The Pore is to be independent by means of foreign
support, and he is to be freely accepted as
" master " by populations who " govern them-
" selves. " If this is not irony what is it ? The
Foreign Minister's official explanation only adds
new elements of confusion to his Imperial mu-
ter's contradictory programme. M. THOUVENEL
undertakes to point out the part which the Italian
Government is to play in this scheme, which is
simply that of assuming the whole liabilities of the
Papal Government without receiving any of its
assets. While France would never consent that
Rome should become the capital of the kingdom,
the Italian Government is at the same time per-
fectly welcome to the Roman debt, and must in fact
accept it in lieu of the capitaL " Italy would have
"to renounce her pretensions to Rome, and en-
" gage with France to respect the Papal territory,
" and assume the greater portion, if not the whole,
" of the Roman debt."
?t is needless at this time of day to discuss the
merit of such • proposal. If it was really offered
in good faith six months ago, there could even

then have been no serious expectation
that it would be accepted either by
Italy or the Papal Government. And since
then the Roman question has passed altogether
beyond the stage for feeble attempts at concilia-
tion, and imperatively demands a settlement.
The French Government was, no doubt, perfectly
right in attempting to come to some understand-
ing with the Holy See, and though the. scheme,
as a whole, could never have been carried out,
some of its proposals were reasonable and consi-
derate. They were, however, all equally rejected
by the traditional obstinacy of tilt, Papal
Government. The important point is to inquire