Skip to main content
Hide Articles List

5 articles on this Page



TO THE KUITOli OF THE PRINCIPALITY. S CR; Through the milium of your enlightened journal I put a few plain questions to the editor of the Merlin, on what seemed to me an important subject, a reply to which. I had a ri"ht to expect. The subject justified the queries, and it mat- ters little whether their author be anonymous or not. My in- nocent and natural procedure has excited the irascible gentle- man into a fury and although his wrath has not. resulted in "blood" or "fire," it has manifested itself in "vapours of si-noke." I had always thought him a polite individual, of his amiability J had heard, and I have had serious thoughts of throwing my bonnet at him, only that I coald not tolerate moral weakness or mental imbecility in a husband; but now bavin" "dubbed" me "ass" or "liar," let me tell him that: Mi°s Ninper has in time become wrathful, and may scratch his face before she has done. That he who looks at most thMva through a mist should sea me enthroned on a pair of koras is not at all to be wondered at. Natural and beautiful objects when seen in a fog often present a very queer and grotesque appearance and it is quite probable that a rational and sensible lady standing erect with feet firmly planted on tei-i-a jirma, putting an editor to the question, may seem to him in a situation hurtful to her dignity. In reply to my remark about his-want of principle, 1resays :— « We have been the advocates of rational liberty in commercial, political and ecclesiastical affairs." Let me ask him what he means bv liberty Does he mean what the Czar, the ^sdieated Emperor of Austria, and the childish Grand Duke of Tuscany mean by it ? I)oes he intend us to understand that he is the advocate of the liberty deemed rational when he was a young man ? If so> ^-is ideas intelligent Europe proclaims to be absurd now", and are gone, like the pig-tails worn then, out of fishion Is he not guilty of artifice in obscuring his sentiments, if he lus any, under the ambiguous phrase "rational libertry," which may mean anything or nothing ? It is plain that what he deems reasonable, judging by his article on the Roman Republic, I and the majority of your readers consider ridicu- lous. His sentiments on the most prominent questions of the day he leads us to believe have been often and fully declared. When did he pronounce on the principles and proceedings of] the Anti-State Church Association ?_ When did he ever give any lucid statement of his views on the six paints of the charter ? At; what period in his history did he give his reasons for or against the present movement in favour of arbitration instead! of war ? And when did this public writer" tell us what his thoughts are on Stated-education? I hxve: no hesitation in spying never. And these are the questions now of most import- ance since they command mast the attention of the popular mind. And when he does favour us with his lucubrations on any subject, what nerve, force, or pungency is there in his best productions ? After reading them.on a debated subject, are we-, not always left with the impression thst the "public writer} thinks very much may be said on both sides ?" lie has addressed himself to the performance of the task I ast him—that is to answer the questions which he say* "I so if iotiously put." He had first to show that the article quoted in his paper from the Sun, entitled, Revolutions of a year," is unsound in principle." It is, he say*, generally unsound, because it represents in the light of enduring changes, events of an uncertain character, in some cases already followed by reaction." Will it be believed, sir, that in the whole course of the article referred to there is not one word about the perma- nnce of the alterations spokenof?—and can it be credited that a writer in such a journal as the Sun should describe these "changes" as" cnduring" when they have already been foI- bv reaction"? Impossible. The author of the lieyo- lutions of a year" says, that in the events which have recently tifken place, the prophecies of Byron and Chateaubriand are 41 beholding their fulfilment." One of these men, says the writer, asserted that kings' days were coming to an end; the other maintained that the regeneration of society politically, socially, and intellectually, was no longer chili-iericil,-it had become a necessity which mankind would, of its own accord, Accomplish Now how the statement that these prophecies are beholding their tulfilment in the recent agitations of na- tions," can be made to mean that all the changes" referred to are enduring," I will not pretend to say. Who but a man in despair of making out his case would have put such an assertion on record ? The next proposition lie had to establish -was that the in- surrectionists of Rome," i. e. the Roman people, are under the control of base political adventurers." Has this been de- monstrated? No fact is cited in evidence, no argument is stated in proof. The false representation is again made, and nothing more. This part of the task is yet unaccomplished then. °Those forming the constituent assembly at Rome are designated conceited, babbling upstarts, and a blatant band of wandering democrats anxious for personal power;" but as to why he applies to them these choice epithets lie has left us in total darkness. Has he not been guilty of foul and m*li<matrt misrepresentation ? What shall be thought of the man-of the Liberal and the Reformer foriooth-who can call & band of pure and ardent patriots headed by such veterans as Sterbini, Muzzanelli,—the latter oi whom has been distin- guished'these thirty years for his great literary and forensic abilities and the Prince de Corsini, venerable no less for his political sagacity than for his patriarchal age (eighty-two), aId who can boast not only of popes but of a canonised saint in his family (Andrea Corsini), conceited, babbling up- starts ?— of the man who can represent as a band of blatant wandering democrats," an assembly of which the famous Maz- sini of European celebrity, and known in England as the elo. quent apostle of democracy," is a mam-ber > How shall we designate the editor who th'us maligns men whose earliest de- bates were described by a writer on the spot as remarkable for grave and earnest eloquence"—whose every enactment has been distinguished for moderation and wisdom—and who de- serve an immortality for one of their latest decrees—the one far abolishing the infernal inquisition ? They were elected by universal suffrage, and have the confidence of the people, in pi-oof of which I quote a late communication of the correspon- dent of the Daily Netos Though during the month of Rossi's administration, based on utter defiance of public opinion, there occurred either a murder or a robbery every second day at Rome, and in the legations the roads were scarcely passable in broad daylight, but "one single crime of this nature has been committed since the establishment ot a popular form of govern- ment; and the laws, as emanating from themselves, obtain respect from the poorest as well as the be ter orders of society. Oii -,vh-it ground are th.3 Republicans charged with personal ambition—men who, having the power in their own hands, have sacredly respected the person of the Pope, done every- thing in their power to govern with him, and who only deposed him when he ran away in the undignified disguise of a lacquey, and has rendered government with his aid an impossibility f Bonaparte, this public writer asserts, is the leader of tho Republicans, ti-id li(, has been guilty of a misdeed. To s-how the groundlessness of this statement it will be sufficient fur me to quote the latest intelligence from Rome -11 Canino, m leader of the Opposition or Red Republican party, though lie assailed the executive on the 11th with the gestures of an Athlete aId the voice of a Stentor, was left in a p-oor minority, •and the confi fence of the Assembly reconfirmed in the Govern- ment." Whether the son of Lucieu be a good or bad man, it is plain he is not the leader of the Romans, and that he is no type of the members of their senate. If the editor condemn that gnve assembly for what Canino is, I shall expect him next to fulminate against the French Republic because of the excesses of Louis Blanc. The public writer" next attempts to demonstrate that the Roman Republicans have been actuated by ingratitude to the Pope, and under this head we h,ti e some rare specimens of « feeble cavils," and of what Jonathan would call powerful weak arguments. He tells us that the Romans were "not wngratefuf because they asked for more political power than he jj; would give — that," he adds, they were justified in doing." 'Why justified, Mr. Editor? Because beggars may ask but not take? or is it because they had a right to what- they requested ? 'Every people have a right to govern themselves. As no man says a luminous author can have any natural or inhe- rent right to rule any more than another, it necessarily fallows that a claim to dominion wherever it is lodged must be iilti- mat el v referred back to the explicit or implied consent of the people. And as the natural eqaaluy of one generation is the same with that of another, the pe)ple have always the a,i.4 set ctsido t-hfiir rut>ors. I ne: Romans felt what they so wdllexprcsse-l in their manifesto that the hour was come when Italy must cease to be a geo- graphical name and become a nation." The three millions of people." said their journals, forming the Roman states are not. a parish nor an ecclesiastical benefice, but a nstion deter- mined on self-government. And because the Romans are intelligent and "manly, and prove themselves wortny of their name-because they will govern themselves, and since they cannot uo it wiln tne rope tney wm uo is witnout nim, tney are what ir-11 grossly ungrateful," The, editors syllogism must run thus. The Rotnaivs have rights .-th I exer- cise those rights — therefore the: iv-e ungrateful. After this one we may expect the taWnted logician to, exercise his ingenuity in making anotbor to prove that a knife and a fork will boil a tea kettle." r The last point the public writhag to prove was, that the Romans have done more against the expansion of ra- tional liberty than Robespierre and his blood-dripping co- terrorists of the first revolution. And in his remarks under er this head, we have a striking illustration of Milton's phrase, "Confusion worse confounded. Indeed it is difficult to see at all what he is aiming at. His object should have been, I conceive, to show the extent of the injury done to liberty by Robespierre and his compeers, and then to prove from a com- parison of the conduct of both parties that the Romans have done the greater damage. Many," he asserts, who are not de- terred from supporting liberalism by what took place in France, are alarmed by what has happened in Italy." What rational man will agree with that statement ? The thing is too puerile to be seriously refuted. Then he adds, The well-known influence which the French revolution had upon the timid has died away but the treatment of the lontiff has rekindled the feeling of dread." Never mind, it only affects the timid. Men now sway the destinies of most European nations. The terrorists frightened the timid, and the Romans have rekindled the feeling of dread with the additional conviction that the popu- lace are as fickle now as half a century ago." Then it is clear from his own showing, that the evil done by both is precisely the same; therefore one cannot have done more injury than the other. But "the French revolution, we are informed, was directed against civil tyranny." Doøs it in this res-peet differ from the Romans ? Not at all. The Constituent Assembly have left the spiritual supremacy of his holiness untouched, and have even invited him to return to Rome to exercise his func- tions as Our Lord God the Pope." Here then again is no difference. But added to these nothings, consider how much worse the Romans are than the French, because they mur- dered Count Rossi." How ungenerous to charge the Roman Senate with the crime of a private assassin Some of the papers spoke of it as an unpremeditated act, prompted by the feelings excited by the count's hauteur, Other journals spoke of a plot among fifteen young men of the city to take his life but nothing has yet transpired to criminate those now forming the Government. They are as reasonably charged with it as the French Government with the assassination of the Arch- bishop of Paris. But supposing Count Rossi was murdered at Rome by her present senators, have they, as this editor repre- sents, done more therefore to injure the cause of "liberty than Robespierre," &c., when under the regimen of the last-named gentleman a king and queen, princes and princesses, together withcounts and countesses almost innumerable, were beheaded ? But, says my opponent, anticipating this query, "the French revolution did not begin with assassinations." Indeed! and what has that to do with the matter ? Just as much as what happened in France the year before that revolution. His busi- ness was to compare what has been done at Rome with what was done in France during the reign of terror and to prove, by the comparison, that the Romans are greater sinners than the terrorists. Well, how does this slippery gentleman ma- nage ? In order to help us to form an estimate of the evil done by the Roman revolution, and to prove that it was greater than that done by the "terrorists," he compares it with a pgriodan- terior to the" reign of terror." Ought he not to have a chair at one of our universities as Professor of Logic ? Before this new light," Whately, hide thy diminished head." But he says, the "Roman Republic has yet only existed a few days." It is manifest that we can only judge of its acts by what it has done,-we have, in the present discussion, nothing to do with their proceedings in the future. Unless Merlin can prove the Romans worse than the "terrorists," from their past history, we know he cannot from their future conduct. I am glad to have done with this blatant" editor, proud to have defended the Roman patriots from his aspersions, and to have raised my feeble voice in support of the glorious cause of democracy. I have, I believe, proved the utter groundless- ness of the charges urged by him against the Roman Govern- ment, and have shown that the editor of the Merlin, i"n his article in answer to my letter, has either proclaimed himself an ass," or that he now" stands convicted as the calumniator of the Roman patriots, as the insidious enemy of freedom, and the blind and bigoted partisan of the Pope and Papacy," and on the horns of this dilemma I leave him." Yours,.& SUSAN NIPPER.


[No title]