The Sun.
London, England, 1863-02-09 00:00:00

ment are of opinion that Rome ought to be left to the

Romans:

Will you read this despatch to 111. Drouyn de Lbuys, and
you will give him a copy of it if he should desire it.

I am, &c.,
(Signed) RUSSELL.

No. 3.
EARL COWLEY TO EARL RUSSELL.--(RECEIVED Nov. 8.)
PARIS, Nov. 7, 1862.
My Lord,—.l took the first opportunity after receiving
your lordship's despatch of the 31st ult., containing the
views of her Majesty's Government on the Roman question,
of communicating it, in compliance with your lordship's in-
structions, to M. Drouyn de Lhuys. His Excellency, after
reading it (I had placed the despatch in his hands for that
purpose), said that he thanked me for the communication;
that he well: d not at present ask me for a copy of it ; that
he could retain the contents sufficiently in his memory to
repeat them accurately to the Emperor, whose orders he
would take the first time he had occasion to :ee his Majesty;
and that if the Emperor desired to see tho despatch itself he

would ask for a copy of it.
M. Drouyn de Lhuys proceeded to say that it was evident
from your lordship's despatch that her Majesty's Govern-
ment enti rtained opinions upon the Roman question differ-
ing so essentially froze► those of the Emperor, as contained
in his Majesty's letter of 20th May, that they were irrecon-
cilable, nor could he lead me to expect, seeing how short a
time had elapsed since the letter had been made public, that
his Majesty's views were likely to be modified at present.
He could only assure me that the Emperor and his Govern-
ment desired, if possible, more ardently than her Majesty's
Government, the evacuation of Rome by the troops of
_ .

France, but that his Majesty considered himself bound in
honour to protect the Pope within the territory which re-
mained to him, so long as his Holiness should continue un-
able to protect himself, or should not enter into some
arrangement with the Italian Government satisfactory to
both parties. His Excellency could not agree with your

lordship in looking upon the latter contingency as impos-
sible of realisation. He would then ask her Majesty's

Government whether, seeing that no material interest of

Great Britain was involved in the immediate solution of the

- _
Roman question, while the Emperor's word was pledged to
the maintenance of the Pope's safety and authority,in which
the whole Roman Catholic world was interested, it would con-
duce to any good end to agitate this question—a question
which he might term purely academical—between the two
Governments. If, indeed, there were reason to suppose that
the Emperor was actuated by any afterthought or un-
avowed design in continuing the occupation of Rome, he
could understand the desire of her Majesty's Government
to push their opposition to it to the tttmost ; but his Excel-
lency was ready to give me the assurance—an assurance
founded on his knowledge of the Emperor's sentiments—
that there was no ground for any such opinion if it existed,
and that his Majesty looked anxiously and ardently for the
moment when he might withdraw his troops with honour,
Such being the case, M. Drouyu de Lhuys could only hope
that the unfortunate difference of opinion which prevailed

---- -
between the two Governments on the Roman question would

not prevent a friendly understanding between them on other
questions in which they had interests in common. here
were specks enough on the political horizon to justify great
anxiety. Look at Greece, where the events which had
lately occurred might be the forerunner of still greater com-
plications in the East. Look at America, so intimately
connected with the commercial prosperity of the two nations.
Surely there was sufficient to occupy the attention of the
two Governments, without prolonging a useless discussion

on the Roman question ; useless, because there was no hope
of either Government convincing the other. For himself
he had some pride, and still greater satisfaction, in reflect-
ing that he had no small share in laying the foundations of
these amicable rela:ions which, he was glad to find, still
subsisted between the two Governments, and which it
would be his earnest endeavour to extend and strengthen,
I said to M. Drouyn de Lhuys that I could, without re-
ferring to your lordship, take upon myself to give him the
assurance that, however much her Majesty's Government
might regret the failure of their efforts to convince the
Imperial Government of the justice and expediency of with-
drawing the French tro ps from the Roman States, it would
not in any way influence their conduct in regard to any
other questions. They placed too high a value on the ad-
vantages accruing not only to the two nations, but to the
whole civilised vnrld, from a general good understanding
between the two Governments, to imperil these relations
because the two Governments might not agree on every
question. It could, however, I maintained, hardly be as-
serted that Great Britain had no direct interest engaged in
the Roman question, because in the opinion of her Majesty's
Government the future peace of Eurr pe might be affected
by it. It was therefore their bounden duty to give such
advice and to ask for such concessions as in their judgment
were best calculated to avert the possibility of so great a
calamity. M. Drouyn de Lhuys also knew the derange-
ment caused to commerce when a country was in the state
of uncertainty in which Italy was now plunged ; and,
lastly, there were great international interests involved in
the important question of foreign occupations.
M. Drouyn de Lhuys replied that, with regard to the
latter point, that of foreign occupation, he could not consider
the Roman Sovereign to be in the same position as other
sovereigns. And this was no new idea; indeed, it was one
in which her Majesty's Government had seemed at one
moment to acquiesce, as he could show me. His Excellency
then read me extracts from a long memorandum which he
had caused to be compiled, with a view of seeing at a glance
what had passed between her Majesty's Government and
that of France when the question of the occupation of Rome
was first mooted in 1848.
During the administration of General Cavaignac, and
before the namo of Napoleon had been brought forward, M.
Bastide, then Minister for Foreign Affairs, announced to
her Majesty's Government the intention of sending a small
force to Rome, and grounded this intention upon the excep-
tional necessity of treating the Pope differently from other
sovereigns, and maintaining his independence and temporal

power.
According to the reports received from M. de Beaumont,
then the French representative in London, her Majesty's
Foreign Secretary had acquiesced in the exceptional neces-
sity of this case ; and subsequently, both when he (M.
Drouyn de Lhuys) was Secretary for Foreign Affairs, and
when afterwards ambassador in London, sent expressly to
explain the policy of the President's Government with re-
gard to Rome, the same exceptional necessity for upholding
the temporal authority of the Pope was pleaded, and was
not contested by her Majesty's Government. He (M.
Drouyn de Lhuys) did not mean to contend that their ac-
quiescence had not-been accompanied with expressions of
deep regret, or that her Majesty's Government would not
have preferred other means to secure the Pope's authority
than the authority of force; still less did he desire to quote
the policy of her Majesty's Government in those days as
binding upon them now. Many reasons might then have
induced them to acquiesce in a state of things which they
might consider intolerable now. All he intended to deduce
from the extracts which he had read to me was, that the
policy of France had been a consistent policy; that the
necessity of protecting the independence and temporal
authority of the Pope had been as much recognised by Re-
publican as it now was by Imperial France; and that, con-
sequently, there was no foundation for any supposition that
the Emperor was actuated by any other motive than that
which he had avowed. Perhaps, also, he (M. Drouyn de
Lhuys) might indulge the hope, in re-perusing the corre-
spondence of thirteen years ago, that the friendly spirit in
which the first intention of occupying Rome had been re-
ceived by her Majesty's Government would be a guarantee
to their no less indulgent patience now.
M. Drouyn de Lhuys begged her Majesty's Government to
recollect further that to leave the future fate of the Pope to
his Roman subjects could not be practically carried out
The Roman population had been so tried by foreign emis-
saries, and the Roman States would be so completely overrun
by foreign revolutionists, if an opportunity was given, that
the true sentiments of the people could never be ascertained.
Furthermore, he desired to point out that there never had
been a national army in the Pope's service. The Roman
population was not militarily inclined. Swiss, Irish, Ger-
mans, Spaniards had formed the mercenary corps which re-
ceived his Holiness' pay. Would it be desirable to estab.
lish such a corps to replace the present army of occupation ?
On the other hand, could the Emperor in honour abandon
the Sovereign Pontiff, whom he had engaged to protect and
had protected during the past years, to the certainty of de.
thronement, and perhaps of worse.
I replied that I was glad to find that M. Druoyn de Lhuys
did not attach more importance than was warranted to the
acquiescence of her Majesty's Government in the primary
occupation of Rome. They certainly never then contem-
plated that that occupation would last 13 years, or that
Italy was about to erect herself into an united and indepen-
dent State. Moreover, it must be recollected that the pre -
sent state of Italy was the result of the Emperor's inter-
vention to emancipate the Italian people from the yoke of
Austria. Yet what a lamentable consequence of the benefits
which nobody would contest the Emperor had been the
means of conferring upon Italy would it be were those Go-
vernments only which had been the least onerous (that of
Naples of course excepted) to be overthrown, while one re-
cognised to be incompatible with the progress of the age
was maintained by the very means which had so muchin
con-
tributed to the downfall of the others. I desired, I said,
the presence of a Minister of a Roman Catholic Sovereign,
to speak of the spiritual authority of the head of that Church
with every respect, but every one must admit and deplore
the vices of his temporal Government.
M. Drouyn de Lhuys replied that although he could not
deny certain abuses, yet he considered them to be greatly
exaggerated.
Such, my Lord, is the summary of a conversation conducted
with perfect temper on both sides. I wish I could add that
I
considered it likely to be followed by any modification of
the Imperial policy of Italy.—l have, &c.,
(Signed) COWLEY.

EARL RUSSELL TO EARL COWLEY.

Foreign-office, Nov. 15, 1862.
My Lord,— I have not failed to lay before the Queen your
despatch of the 7th instant.

Her Majesty's Government did not expect that the com-
munication of their views would produce any immediate
change in the policy of Franco; but believing those views
to be inspired by a warm regard for the interests of Italy,

and t obe conducive to the peace of Europe, her Majesty's
Government cannot consent to change or to modify them.
The only new argument brought forward by M. Drouyn
de Lhuys consists in a reference to the events of 1848 and
1849, and the acquiescence of her Majesty's Government in
the French occupation of Rome at that time. But ac-
quiescence did not imply approbation ; still less would ap-
probation then imply approbation now. Your excellency
rightly argued that the whole state of Italy has altered
since that time ; the state of Lombardy, Modena, Parma,
Tuscany, Romagna, Umbria, the Marches, and the king-
dom of the Two bicilies has altered; in short, everything
has changed except the French occupation of Rome.
The generosity of the French nation will probably at
length perceive the injustice of keeping all Italy in a con-
dit'on of anxiety, and the Romans in a condition of misera-
ble servitude.—l am, &c.,
(Signed) RUSSELL.

No. 5.
MR. ODo RUSSELL TO EARL RUSSELL.—(RECEIVED
Nov. 28.)—(Extract.)
Rome, November 11, 1862.

In obedience to your lordship's instructions I called this
morning on the Cardinal Secretary of State at the Vatican,
and told him that her Majesty's Government had observed
with great interest the correspondence respecting Rome
which had been published in the Moniteur of the 25th Sep-
tember last, and that I would, with his Eminence's per-
mission, communicate a despatch to him which I had re-
ceived from your lordship on the subject.
I then read your lordship's despatch of the 25th October
to Cardinal Antonelli, who listened with great attention, and
when I had done, said he thought your lordship could
scarcely be more anxious than he was that Rome should not
be the seat of a perpetual foreign occupation.
He ardently desired to see the Pope in full possession of
that independence which became the Sovereign Pontiff, the
visible bead of the Roman Catholic Church, independent of
enemies who persecuted the Church, and independent of
friends whose protection could not unhappily yet be dis-
pensed with.
But since the enemies of order and legitimate right in Italy
had been encouraged in their reckless and immoral course,
and since the Pope had not the means to protect the tem-
poral interests of the Church against their violence and ra-
pacity without foreign assistance, he was compelled to accept
the protection afforded him by the presence of a French
garrison in Rome.
' Your lordship observed truly that this melancholy state of
things in Italy wounded the kind heart and harrowed the
paternal feelings of his Holiness, and you were equally right
in concluding that the conscientious feelings of duty of the
Pope would always oblige him to refuse any terms of ac-
commodation, whether recommended by the Emperor of the
French, or by any other Power, which should leave him
with less than his former territory. _ _

The reasons which prompted this course of action were
obvious. _ _

The Pope did not hold the States of the Church as an in-
heritance from his ancestors, and could not dispose of them
at his will either before or after death. As Vicar of Christ
he held them in trust from God for the Catholic world; and
as he received them, so he had to leave them to his suc-
cessor, according to the oath taken by the Pontiffs on
ascending the throne of St. Peter.
And again the Pope, as Vicar of Christ, and therefore as
the guardian of religion and morality on earth, could not
give his sanction to acts which violated every law of public
morality and of legitimate right ; and however much his
heart might bleed at the sad conflict around him, he had a
duty, as head of the Catholic Church, to perform, for which
he was answerable to God alone in heaven and not to man
upon earth,
This conscientious policy pursued by the Pope had been
publicly and unanimously approved by the whole of the
bishops of Catholics Christendom, and while his Holiness
could fulfil the sacred duties of his office in any portion of
the Holy See, however small and limited, wita freedom and
inlependence, it was his duty to assert the temporal rights
of the Church, by remaining in it, until violently driven
away by the enemies of religion. Now your lordship, ani-
mated by a friendly feeling to both parties, suggested that the
Pope should retire from the conflict, and expect in tran-
quillity the issue which, in the order of Providence, might
await the Papacy and determine the fate of Italy.
But the abandonment of Rome, so long as its possession
was guaranteed by France, would be tantamount to that
very abdication of temporal rights which the conscientious
feelings of duty of the Sovereign Pontiff for ever precluded.
If the Pope left Rome the Emperor of the French would
naturally recall his troops to France, and Rome would be in-
vaded by the enemies of the Church ; a contingency to-
wards which the Pope in his conscience could never contri-
bute by any voluntary act of his own, so long as he could
there freely exercise the spiritual and temperal duties of his
high office.
On the other hand, should it ever so please Providence,

in the course of events, to allow the French protecting forces
to be withdrawn, and the Piedmontese to invade Rome, and
should the free exercise of the Pontiff's spiritual duties
thereby be endao gered, then, and not till then, would it
become the Pope's paramount duty to seek protection for the
independence of the Church in some foreign land, and the
generous offers of hospitality now made by her Majesty's
Government might be gratefully accepted.
Cardinal Antonelli then requested me to thank your lord-
ship in the warmest terms for the communication I had
made to him, and asked me for a copy of your despatch,
which he said he would submit to the Pope.

No. 6.

MR. Ono RUSSELLTOEARLII;SSELL. (Received Dec. 18.)
(Extract.) Rome, Nov. 28, 1862.
With reference to your lordship's despatch of the 25th
of October, and to my reply of the 11th of November, I
have the honour to state that I asked Cardinal Antonelli
this morning whether he had submitted to the Pope the
reasons for which your lordship thought that it would be-
come his Holiness to retire from the present conflict, and
expect in tranquillity the issue which, in the order of Pro-
vidence might await the Papacy and determine the fate of
Italy; and I further inquired how his Holiness bad taken
the offers of hospitality made to him in consequence by her
Majesty's Government.
Cardinal Antonelli replied that he had communicated your
lordship's despatch to the Pope the day after I had given
had a copy of it, namely, on Nov. 12, and that his Holiness
had fully acknowledged the friendly spirit in which that
communication hp.d been made; but that since it was his
manifest duty to remain in Rome so long as he could do so
with advantage to the spiritual interests of the Church, he
could but thank her Majesty's Government for their inten-
tions, but he could not share their opinions, nor could he
avail himself of their hospitable offers at present.

No. 7.
EARL RUSSELL TO EARL COWLEY.

Foreign Office, Jan. 29, 1863.

My Lord,—There is in the volume called "Documents
Diplomatiques," presented by the Government of the Em-
peror to the Legislative Chambers, the copy of a despatch
from the Ambassador of France at Rome, dated the 27th of
December, 1862.

In this despatch the Prince of La Tour d'Auvergne gives
information " which," he says, "he has reason to believe
correct, concerning the proposition lately made to the Holy
See by Lord John Russell to place the Island of Malta at
the disposal of the Pope, in case ha should consent, as
England advised him, to abandon Rome to Italy."
The information collected by the Ambassador is to the
following effect :—lt is, that in the course of the summer Mr.
Odo Russell, who was about to leave Rome on leave, asked
for an audience of the Pope. The audience being granted,
he pleaded, as was usual with him, in favour of the cause
of Italian unity. That when Mr. Russell was about to take
leave of his Holiness, and when he was already at the door
of the Pope's cabinet, the Holy Father, without apparently
attaching the smallest importance to the circumstance, ad-
dressed Mr. Russell in these words:—" Farewell, my dear
Mr. Russell; who knows whether one day I may not be
obliged to ask from you a hospitable reception ?" At these
words Mr. Russell, it is said, returned into the Cabinet, and
asked his Holiness whether, in fact, he feared be should be
obliged to quit Rome, and whether in that case he would be
really disposed to go to England. The Pope at once tram,
quillised Mr. Russell, adding that he did not know what
trials Providence reserved for him, but for the moment he
had no apprehension, and had no thoughts of quitting
Rome. Mr. Russell, the French Ambassador says, no
doubt transmitted the account of this conversation to his
Government, exaggerating, perhaps, its importance, and
was soon after, it is affirmed, recalled to London by tele-
graph. The narrative given by the Ambassador goes on to
affirm that Mr. Odo Russell, on his return to Rome in the
month of November, presented to the Cardinal Secretary of
State a note from her Majesty's Government advising the
"Pope to leave Rome, and to go to France, Spain, or Malta.
This note Mr. Russell is said to have given to the Cardi-
nal, authorising him confidentially to make such use of it
as he might think proper. Tho Cardinal is said to have
hasten. d to reply that he had no use to make of the note,
sell of violating
smoe the Pope had not the smallest intention of hewingßome.
Rome. The Ambassador then proceeds to accuse Mr. Rus •
his duty by communicating on the subject
with a diplomatic envoy accredited to the Holy See.
..The Cardinal Secretary of State, however, it is said, con-
steered theincident at an end, when Mr. Russell presented
himself again to his Eminence on the occasion of the festi-
val of Christmas, and informed him that he had just received
a private letter from Lord Russell, in which Lord Russell
expressed his deep regret at learning that the Pope was not
for the present disposed to accept his proposals, adding that
he had reason to believe that his Holiness would soon find
himself under the necessity of profiting by it. But Cardinal
Antonelli, it is said, made nu reply to this communication.
Such is the narrative which the Ambassador of France
has compiled from the hearsay of Rome, and which the
Minister for Foreign Affairs has published to the French
Chambers and to the world without apparently asking you
whether this despatch contained a true account of the
transactions to which it related as having passed at Rome.
Such being the hearsay account given by tne French
Ambassador at Rome, I owe it to Mr. Russell to state what
really happened so far as he was concerned ; and it is due to
her Majesty's Government that I should place in the hands
of M. Drouyn de Lhuys a statement of what they have done
in this matter.
That which happened was as follows :
Mr. Russell, on the 25th July, 1852, received unexpect-