The Sun.
London, England, 1866-02-26 00:00:00

THE PAPAL STATES.

THE SEPTEMBER CONVENTION.

The following is the text of Cardinal Antonelli's
despatch to the Pontifical Nuncios abroad upon the
September Convention :
" Most Illustrious and Reverend Sir,—Your ex-
cellency is doubtless aware that the Convention
concluded on the 15th September of last year (1864)
between the French and Piedmontese Governments,
and of which no communication was made to the
Holy See until the afternoon of the 28th of the same
month, has already commenced to be put into exe-
cution by the gradual withdrawal of the French
troops to be completed within the course of next
year.
" The Government of the holy See, as it was
foreign to the stipulations of that treaty, is in the
sameposition with respect to its fulfilment. The con-
sequences, however, which it may have, greatly in-
terest the Pontifical Government, and it is there-
fore necessary that they should be clearly stated in
order to rectify public opinion, which an unscru-
pulous press continually seeks to mislead on this
point, as well as to remove every responsibility from
the Holy See before the world.
"After expressing at the Congress of Paris in
1856 the desire to see the Pontifical States evacuated
by foreign troops, as soon as that could be done
without danger to the tranquillity of the country,
and the consolidation of the authority of the Holy
See,' M. Drouyn de Lhuys in a despatch addressed
on the 12th September, 1864, to the French Am-
bassador at Rome, expressed himself on the same
subject as follows We were resolved not to
abandon this post of honour until the object of the
occupation had been attained.' Now, even if the
idea of the realisation of such a condition entered
into the motives of the present recall of the French
army from the States of the Church, the Pontifical
Government is bound to declare, although it has not
been questioned on the subject, that such an idea is
a vain deception and a fallacious hope. To whom,
in fact, upon hearing of this recall at the pre-
sent juncture, would not the following questions
occur ? Does the situation in which the Sovereign
Pontiff is now left fulfil the object for which the
dominions of the Holy See were occupied by foreign
troops ? Was this the intention of the appeal made
by the Pope himself to the Catholic Powers, and to
which France, with filial affection, replied? Were
these the strong reasons for which France herself,
with the applause of the whole Catholic world,
which will retain towards her an imperishable gra-
titude, determined to respond to that appeal ? Who
would dare to place in the mouths of the valiant
soldiers recalled to their country such absurd words
as these We were at Rome in the name of
Catholicity upon the appeal of the Pope, who called
us to aid in recovering possession of his States. He
is now despoiled of the greatest and best part of his
provinces, and even for the little that remains to
him he is threatened with similar spoliation by an
inimical power surrounding him on all sides. There-
fore the object of our occupation is attained !'
"The Minister above mentioned, with his well-
known penetration, could not but feel all the harsh-
ness of such a conclusion, and therefore, in his de-
spatch, endeavoured to justisfy his premises by va-
rious reflections, and to soften the crudeness of his
argument by showing the efforts made by the Pied-
montese Government for the security of the Holy
Father. It is necessary, therefore, for me to make
some observations on both points. The considera-
tions entered into in the Minister's despatch com-
mence by recording how, at the beginning of 1859,
the Holy Father himself proposed the evacuation of
his states by foreign troops ; and that in 1860 this
evacuation was fixed for the month of August, al-
though it could not subsequently be carried out,
not from any objection raised by his Holiness, but
from the occurrence of certain agitations. I certainly
need not dwell long upon these observations, since
theimmense disparity between present circumstances
and the state of things existing at that time is clearly
self-evident. In 1839 the Holy Father was not only
in full and secure possession of his states, his fron-
tiers surrounded on all sides by friendly powers ;
but had not then even a suspicion of the sacrilegious
attempts of which he subsequently became the in-
nocent victim. It might then have been justly con-
sidered that the object of the occupation of the
Pontifical States by foreign troops was attained.'
The Holy Father, on the other hand, was induced
to make the above-mentioned proposal not because
he attached no value to the presence of the French
troops in his states, or did not appreciate the impor-
tant services they had rendered him, and for which
he has professed and will ever entertain the greatest
gratitude, but solely from his desire to prevent the
evils which he apprehended from its being said in
high quarters that the ulterior stay of foreign troops
in the States of the Church might give rise to an
European war. In 1860, therefore, although already
despoiled of the Romagna, he still remained in
tranquil possession of the greater part of his states,
with an army sufficient to maintain order and guard
the frontier against irregular bands ; he had the
eastern and western frontiers not only secured from
enemies, but surrounded by friendly neighbours ;
besides which the revolutionary Parliament had not
expressed the sacrilegious wish to obtain, by one
means or another, the city of Rome as the capital
of the new kingdom, and consequently to annex the
whole Pontifical State. Can this now be said? The
testimony of facts absolves me from making a reply.
" The other consideration brought forward by
the above-mentioned Minister is that the occupation
of Rome produces two inconveniences, one of which
is that it constitutes a foreign intervention, the other
that it places on the same ground two distinct sove-
reignties. As to the first case, I pass over the fact
that the famous principle of non-intervention is not
recognised by natural law, which in many cases
enjoins an opposite course, nor by the positive law of
Europe; while France herself shows, at least by acts,
that intervention may take place when required by
any reason, or when it is believed to be required. I
will not dwell upon the solemn condemnation of
this principle by the Sovereign Pontiff, supreme
master of the principles of honesty and justice
among Catholics, who in the allocution delivered in
the consistory of Sept. 28, 1860, spoke in the fol-
lowing decisive terms We cannot abstain from
deploring, among other evils; that fatal and perni-
cious principle styled non-intervention, which some
Governments, with the toleration of others, have
recently proclaimed, and even adopted in the case
of the unjust aggression of one Government upon
another, appearing to seek a pretext, contrary to
every human and divine law, for an almost certain
impunity and licence in attacking and violating the
rights of others, their property and dominions, as
we have seen has happened in these troublous times.
And it is truly surprising that the Piedmontese Go-
vernment alone should be permitted to violate with
impunity and disregard such a principle, when we
see, with all Europe also for witnesses that it invades
with its hostile battalions the dominions of others,
driving out the legitimate princes. Hence follows
the pernicious
absurdityb. that the intervention of
others can only admitted when it will excite and
foster rebellion I l not, .'
I say, dwell upon these
and other similar considerations.or I affirm only that
whatever maybe thoughtht
this principle in its
purely political sense, it cannot certainly be applied
in the present case relative tothe
St
See. The very evident reason of this is the
States
odferivedlly
Holy
from the interests at stake there and the persons who
would intervene. The political independence of the
Head of the Church, necessarily for the libertyoof
only
apostolic ministry, is a matter that does not
appertain to Rome or its Sovereign, but intimately
concerns all the Catholic states, and even the non-
Catholic states having Catholic subjects. '.this
therefore, in great part, a home question for all those
powers ; and so much the more so since it affects
the most delicate part of man —his conscience and
religious relations. Now, who shall describe as
foreign intervention the act of intervening in a
matter so closely connected even with the civil ordi-
nances of single states ? With respect, then, to
persons, it is beyond question that all Catholics are
sons of the common Father of the Faithful, and his
subjects in the spiritual order. How, then, can it
be said that the latter are foreign to the former, and
that one should be inl•erdicted from going to the
assistance of the other, when threatened on all sides
and exposed to the danger of losing his indepen-