iment of
religious animosity or rivalry."

(M52) Sardinia alone held aloof. Its minister did not, like the other
European ambassadors, seek the presence of the Pope when he was pressed by
the revolutionists. Nor did he repair, as they did, to Gaeta, but remained
in Rome, and, to the great surprise and scandal of all the European
Courts, transacted business with the governments which reigned there in
the absence of the legitimate sovereign. The absorption of all the states
of Italy, not excepting that of the Pope, by Piedmont, was the ruling idea
of Piedmontese statesmen. They were guided by a selfish view to what they
considered their own interest, not by principles that were universally
recognized. Such were continental liberals. The English liberals, the
party of reform, thought differently. One of their chiefs, Lord Lansdowne,
whose high character as a statesman gives weight to his words, declared,
in the British House of Peers, when the French expedition to Rome was
discussed there, that "the condition of the Pope's sovereignty is
especially remarkable in this, that so far as his temporal power is
concerned, he is only a sovereign of the fourth or fifth order. In his
spiritual power he enjoys a sovereignty without its equal on earth. Every
country which has Roman Catholic subjects has an interest in the condition
of the Roman States, and should see to it that the Pope be able to
exercise his authority independently of any temporal influence that could
affect his spiritual power." Thus did all Christendom--all the states which
owned the Christian name--true to immemorial tradition, consider that they
lay under the obligation to watch over the freedom and independence of the
great central power whence proceeded their early civilization.

The French government, in restoring Pius IX., only obeyed the will so
often and so clearly expressed of the European nations. Now that he was
once more firmly seated on the Pontifical throne, it was time, thought the
Cavour-Napoleon-Mazzini party, that he should introduce into his states
what they called true reform--_the Code Napoleon and the secularization of
his government_. This, as has been seen, he could not do. It was
tantamount to the abdication of his sovereignty. That he did reform,
however, wisely and efficiently, Count de Rayneval has abundantly shown.
His measures of reform were large and liberal, and, in the judgment of
eminent statesmen, left little room for improvement