Untitled article | AdventAI

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Third-day, December 31, 1867

The Failure of the Roman Conference.

It will require a better knowledge than we possess at present of the diplomatic negotiations between the European courts, during the present month, to comprehend fully the extent of the new defeat of Louis Napoleon; but what we do know amply proves the fact of the defeat. From the utterances of the official papers of France and other countries we know that the diplomatic agents of France at every court of Europe made the utmost efforts to obtain the acceptance of the invitation to the Conference for the settlement of the Roman question. The efforts of the agents were energetically supported by the official and semi-official press, which, by systematic misrepresentations of the progress of the transaction, tried to spread the belief that the Conference was a fixed fact, and that only the want of agreement upon some insignificant details retarded its convocation. How persistent the French press was in this misrepresentation, may be seen from the fact that even a few days ago, when the advices from London, Berlin, and St. Petersburg concurrently announced the failure of the scheme, the Moniteur continued to assert that the Conference would take place.

The attitude of the great powers of Europe with regard to the French proposals indicates not only a failure of this particular scheme, but a general decline of France in the international counsels of Europe. Napoleon, according to his custom, tried to keep all parties in the dark as to his real designs. He opposed the claims of Italy to Rome, not as the open and outspoken defender of the pretended rights of the Pope, but on the ground of a right of France to intervene in an Italian question. Nothing in the official language of the agents of Napoleon indicated that, like the statesmen of Spain, he aimed at obtaining new guarantees for the perpetuation of the present dominion of the Pope; but the only thing that could be inferred from the hints that had been thrown out from time to time was that Napoleon had in view some new combinations of European powers for securing the independence of the spiritual authority of the Pope, under the leadership of France. The clerical party in France and elsewhere have been jubilant at the last move of Napoleon, as it opposed the claims of Italy upon Rome; but the speech of M. Moustier, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, which we gave the day before yesterday, carefully refrained from indorsing the views expressed in the name of the clerical party by the Archbishop of Paris and others. The French Senate is a thoroughly Ultramontane body. Nearly all the speakers were ardent exponents of the claims of the Pope; not a solitary champion of the rights of the Italians was to be found among the speakers; but the Minister, while blandly pretending to a thorough sympathy with the views of the Ultramontane speakers, managed to make his speech as ambiguous as are usually the addresses of his Imperial master. A later speech by M. Rouher seems to have stepped a little beyond his usual reserve, and indicated that at the Conference he would openly oppose Italy. The great courts of Europe have emphatically disapproved both the insidious silence of M. Moustier and the clerical tendencies of M. Rouher.

The defeat of France increases the hopes of the national party of Italy. They cannot expect the present conservative ministry to take any bold step toward the restoration of the national hope; but the knowledge that Prussia, Russia, and England disfavor the impertinent meddling of France in Italian matters will strengthen the national party, and increase the longing of the nation for Rome. An Italian Bismarck, under the present circumstances, would hardly let go the golden opportunity of concluding the national independence; but, unfortunately, Italy has yet to wait for its Bismarck.—N. Y. Tribune.