Rimini, in 1845, occasioned the publication of Massimo d'Azeglio's pamphlet on the 'Ultimi Casi di Romagna.' As Mr. King tells us, the book at once made a party,' though, when we read it at this time of day, it is not obvious why the long-winded and not always clear reasoning should have been so effective. But Minghetti has preserved the key for us, and no one was better qualified to judge. 'I Casi 'di Romagna,' he says, was the earliest practical exposition of the programme then first adopted-the substitution of 'public, peaceful, serious, and courageous discussion of our affairs for secret societies and plots.'

6

The book told not only on Italian public opinion, but on the new Pope himself, who owed to its pages, as well as to those of Gioberti's Primato,' some of his Liberal tendencies, some more to the personal influence of his fellow-countryman, Count Pasolini, but probably most of all to his own benevolent, if not clear-sighted, nature.

What are we to say of good, kindly, easy-going Pius IX. ? What else than he said of himself? Good God! They want to make a Napoleon of me, who am only a poor • country parson.' He was, in fact, an average specimen of a not uncommon type of Italian character. Good-natured and well-intentioned, not easily stirred to wrath, not intolerant, not cruel or revengeful, but morally rather than physically timid, disinclined for exertion of any kind, and particularly for mental effort, threading the crowded difficulties of life with humorous plaintiveness, more anxious to make no enemies and to offend no man than to speak the truth and shame the devil. It is a loveable character, and pleasant to sail with over smooth waters. But of such are the immense majority of the men who at this very moment are the prey of the fierce tiger-cats of Camorra and Mafia, and of the less notorious societies of the Comarca and the Adriatic shore. Helpless as they was Pius in the tempest of conflicting beliefs and conflicting duties, helpless as they in the clutches of Antonelli. The storm was gathering as he weighed anchor; when it broke he was perplexed and frightened, and handed over the helm to his pirate skipper.

'It is clear,' writes Mr. Stillman, that Pius IX., on assuming power, had no precise conception of his future course. Of extreme benevolence of disposition, and a devout man, the sufferings of the people and the severity of past Governments had no doubt impressed him profoundly, and, believing in the goodness and docility of his subjects, he was disposed to do what lay in him to lessen their troubles.

Ameliorations in the condition of his people he desired, but he intended that they should be conferred as those of a father to his children, and that they should be recognised as free gifts and not made obligatory by any law which should control or seem to control his action. It is needless to describe the demonstrations of devotion and gratitude which marked the first year or two of the Pope's reign. His more conservative advisers foresaw what eventually took place. A people absolutely unused to liberty for centuries, having the door opened which led to self-government, could no more be controlled in their movements than the sea tides. . . . The right of forming associations and clubs and all the paraphernalia of popular liberty came rapidly to the front; the press, for which the utmost freedom was claimed, at first reforming, became satirical and finally subversive; and all the rest of the abuses growing out of liberty presented themselves in rapid succession.'

The Pope's reforms were marred by one constant and complex defect. They were all half-measures, hampered by conditions which nevertheless were not enforced. Exactly a month after his election Pius made his first plunge by issuing an amnesty for political offences on July 16, 1846. But it was conditional on recognition of error and signature of the following formula:

'I recognise the reception of a singular favour in the generous and spontaneous pardon conceded to me by the indulgence of the Supreme Pontiff Pius IX., my legitimate sovereign, for all the part I have taken, in whatever manner, in the attempts which have disturbed public order and attacked the legitimate authority constituted in his temporal dominions. I promise on my word of honour not to abuse in any manner or at any time the sovereign clemency, and I give my pledge to fulfil faithfully all the duties of a good and loyal subject.'

Of the numerous political prisoners and exiles only a handful, among whom were Mamiani and Pepoli, refused to sign. Nevertheless they were allowed to return from their exile, and even before long to hold high office.

In August the nomination of a Liberal Secretary of State was regarded as an earnest of further progress. But who is this Liberal Secretary? It is Cardinal Gizzi, a good and kind old man, of nearly ninety years of age! Not a time of life that promises very rapid progress. Nevertheless, in March 1847, he relaxed the censorship of the press, and on April 14 instituted a Council of State, better known as theConsulta,' from which laymen were not necessarily excluded. Yet, in the state of men's minds in 1847, even these slow steps gave general satisfaction, and, on the anniversary of the Pope's election, the populace burst into demonstrations of enthusiasm. But their noisiness was

thought alarming, and six days later was issued an edict forbidding such assemblages. Thenceforward the popularity of cardinals and of Consulta' was gone, and the mob began to shout Viva Pio Nono solo!'-Long live Pius IX. only!' The formation of a citizen guard on June 30-an important step towards democracy in all the revolutions of that timeled to Gizzi's resignation.

Meanwhile Metternich saw clearly what must follow, and made a pretext of some local disturbance to occupy Ferrara on July 27. This roused the national sentiment of the Romans, and the irritation which the Pope showed at Austrian interference made him for the time appear to be a champion of Italian independence. The spirit of the moment inspired Mazzini to address to Pius an impassioned appeal to put himself at the head of a movement which should regenerate at once the Papacy and Italy, religion and politics,

....

'to become, after so many centuries of doubt and corruption, the apostle of eternal truth; to sacrifice himself in order that the will of God might be done in earth as it is in heaven; to ask himself in every difficulty, not " Will the princes of this world disapprove, will their ambassadors present notes and protests?" but "Is this thing just or unjust; true or a lie; the law of man or the law of God?".. Unite Italy, your fatherland. We will raise up around you a nation over whose free developement you shall preside. We will found a govern ment unique in Europe, that shall put an end to the absurd divorce between the spiritual and the temporal power. . . . Fear not excesses on the part of the people. The people commit no excesses unless left to their own impulses without a guide whom they venerate. . . . Then, under your flag, would be gained an immense result, at once political and moral, because Italy's new birth under the agis of a religious idea, under the standard not of rights but of duties, would outstrip all revolutions in foreign lands, and place Italy immediately at the head of European progress, and because it lies in your hands to make these two terms, God and people, too often and too fatally disjoined, arise all at once in fair and holy harmony to direct the fate of the nations.'

Of this letter Mr. King says that it was written in too 'transparent flattery, and was far from expressing Mazzini's permanent feelings.' No doubt the feelings were not permanent, but for the moment they were sincere. It is true that at a later date Mazzini seems to have been ashamed of any symptom of enthusiasm for Pius IX., and of his own misapprehension of the possibilities of the situation, even hinting (in 1856) that the letter had been written with some hidden motive, with a different object, which

' was attained, but of which there is now no need to speak.' But on the very same day on which he penned the epistle, September 8, 1847, he writes to Giuseppe Lamberti : In a moment of expansion and youthful illusion I have ' written a long letter to Pius IX., pointing out to him what 'he could and should do; it will be thrown into his carriage ' within twelve days at the latest.' Its only effect seems to have been to frighten Pius, who nevertheless continued in his mild reforms. On November 24 was installed the newly organised municipality of Rome, and finally, on December 30, an edict was issued establishing a council of ministers on the modern plan, to be composed of nine heads of departments. But all the nine posts were to be held by ecclesiastics! And this, although the Great Powers had, so long ago as 1831, advised that a share of higher offices should be given to laymen; although Pellegrino Rossi, who enjoyed Pius's confidence, had urged again and again that the possibility of moderate reform and escape from revolution hinged on this change. This, he said, was 'the knot of the question.' Again half measures, and again the restrictions are thrown overboard under pressure of circumstances. In six weeks' time Pasolini and Sturbinetti, laymen, are admitted to office. But much had happened in those weeks.

On January 1, 1848, the populace prepared to go in procession to the Quirinal, as a demonstration of gratitude to the Pope for his concessions. But Pius had been annoyed by a petition, presented on December 27, which craved the expulsion of the Jesuits. He had no intention of granting it, and would not appear. Yet he gave way to signs of popular dissatisfaction, and, notwithstanding the previous summer's prohibition of assemblages, went out on the following day, parading the streets in his carriage, while Ciceruacchio followed him in another, with a placard bearing the words: Holy Father, justice! The people are with you!'

All the tinder of riot and revolution was there, and seemed only to wait for the spark. Yet when the sparks came, flying fast enough from the risings of Palermo on January 12, of Paris on February 24, and of Vienna on March 13, the tinder did not ignite. The reason seems to have been that the news of each of these conflagrations wrung from the Pope wider liberties, which deferred the fatal hour for some months to come. Thus Palermo was followed by the admission of the laymen Pasolini and Sturbinetti to office; Paris by the formation, on March 10,

of a ministry comprising Farini, Minghetti, Sturbinetti, Pasolini, and others, and by the grant of a constitution on March 14; Vienna, by the decision to send the army to the frontier. Half measures again! The ministry of March 10 was presided over by Cardinal Antonelli. The legislative power of the chambers under the constitution was reduced to a shadow by the control of the College of Cardinals. As for the war policy, it was the outcome of misapprehensions, and led to the most fatal of all the misunderstandings between Pius and his Liberal subjects.

The Nationalist aspirations of the latter, and the Pope's resentment at the Austrian occupation of Ferrara, united in a stream of sufficient force to ensure the despatch of the troops. The Holy Father blessed the flags before their departure. But the aims of the war party, who wished to join Piedmont in expelling the Austrians from Italy, were very divergent from those of Pius, who was only anxious to prevent any encroachment on Papal territory. Accordingly General Durando marched under orders not to cross the frontier, unless to occupy Rovigo, to which place there were some Papal claims of old standing, and when he addressed a proclamation to his troops on April 5, saying 'the Pope had blessed their arms, which, united to those of Charles 'Albert, would move in concord with them to the exter'mination of the enemies of God and Italy,' Pius took it very ill, and expressed his displeasure in the allocution of April 29. War with Austria he declared to be wholly abhorrent from the counsels of one who regarded and 'loved with equal affection all peoples, races, and nations.' Such a manifesto at this critical moment could not but alienate the moderate Nationalists, and exasperate the Radicals. It raised a wall of separation between the Pope and all who were working for independence. From that day Pius lost the influence with his own subjects, and with the whole Italian people, which he had gained as the seeming champion of nationality. Yet his previous attitude made it impossible for him to pose with any effect to the Catholic world as equally the father of all 'Christians.' When, on May 5, he addressed a letter to the Emperor of Austria, inviting him to change into useful relations of friendly neighbourhood a domination 'which could not be noble or happy when maintained by 'the sword,' the ill-timed appeal fell upon deaf ears. And now came the nemesis of vacillation. The first orders to Durando had prevented any effective assistance to Piedmont,