THE MISSION TO ROME. 97 



May 7th, not only that he had not given orders for the 

 attack upon Home, but that he "had only authorised 

 the march upon Rome on the condition of no serious 

 resistance being offered, or of our being appealed to 

 by the population at large " ? 



Can there be any more flagrant contradiction than 

 that which is involved in this utterance, and the order 

 given to attack and seize Rome before the result of 

 our negotiations could be known ? 



Lastly, was it possible for us to have mingled 

 without restriction with the Roman population and 

 garrison, while preserving a mixed and expectant 

 attitude, in conformity with the object of the expe- 

 dition and that of my mission ? 



The permanent occupation of Rome by our troops 

 was not indicated either directly or indirectly by my 

 instructions as an indispensable element of the con- 

 ciliation which I was instructed to bring about. It 

 exposed us to countless difficulties. The Roman 

 authorities have incessantly declared in their notes, 

 as I have pointed out, that they could not agree to 

 it so long as we had not recognised their Republic 

 and the powers by which it was governed. 



As to the "firm and resolute " language which our 

 army was to have employed, when it had once taken 

 possession of Rome, I do not know upon what such an 

 idea is founded. If we had entered Rome after 

 having destroyed the Republic, we should have had 

 no need to have employed that tone to any one, for we 



VOL. i. H 



