The Sun.
London, England, 1870-10-15 00:00:00

upon by no one knows who, was that of allowing the
Romans to vote, not in .Rome, but by corporations, arts et
metiers. The words we have italicised we do not under-
stand; they may be a misprint. At any rate, the whole con-
text proves our position. And how was this ingenious
device carried out ? An official ticket was provided (no
other was received), headed by " the traditional wolf ; "
and the ticket ran thus :—" S.P.Q.R.—Central Commit-
tee for the Plebiscite.— Inscription ticket, admitting
bearer to vote for the Pldhiscite of Rome. 2nd October,
1870. Given to Mr. N. N. The Committee." Just
imagine anyone who seriously intended to vote " No,',
receiving such a ticket from such a committee ! But
the farce was carried through to the end-47 Noes
were recorded. It is candidly avowed that these
were theatrical performances. Some diverting vaga-
bond, perfectly well known to all as in the Pied-
inontese interest, would come forward with his tongue
in his cheek, display his legible " No" to all the
beholders, and deposit it in the urn. And there is ample
reason to believe that another theatrical device, by which
a score of supernumeraries are made to represent a con-
siderable army, marching off at one side of the stage to
march on again at the other, was also freely resorted to. By
such stratagems as these, and by the unlimited distribution
of voting papers to every one, of whateuer province, race,
or complexion, who was prepared to cast his ticket for
annexation, thousands of sufficiently satisfactorST suffrages
were secured. No other qualification was necessary to
convert at once a child into an adult, a woman into a
man, and a Sicilian semi-Arab into a lineal descen-
dant of the Gracchi. The Marquis Patrizi Montero
admits, and it would be absurd to deny, that
numbers of undoubtedly Roman citizens " voted
through fear, or from a desire to go with the
winning side." Yet, even with respect to these, we can
quote the unsuspected testimony of the democratic
Diritto, whose Roman correspondent says, that " a great
number of Noes, if they were not in the urns, were
believe it, in the hearts ; and that is a thing
we shall be made sensible of later on." We are
compelled by a sense of duty to take one excep-
tion to the Marquis Patrizi's letter, excellent as it is in
other respects. We cannot admit his defence of Prince
Borghese's act in putting his name to the declaration of the
Roman Chamber of Commerce. It is an act that deserves
even more emphatic reprehension than any done by The
Pope's most determined enemies. Catholicmorality—and
in this all theologians are unanimous—condemns co-opera-
tion of any kind in acts that are of themselves unlawful.
It was quite open to Prince Borghese to refuse to sign the
resolution of the Chamber ; it was open to him to resign
its presidency. The plea that his act was " ministerial" would
justify everything that the King of Italy has done against
the Holy See. On the other hand, his weak compliance
has not availed to save his palace from an attempted con-
flagration at the hands of the ruffians whom Cadorna has
let loose upon Roman society. We cannot feel much pity
, for him under the circumstances.