to apply for them. So somehow or other, what with a mass or two a day,
or by private tuition, or by charitable assistance, or in some cases by
small handicrafts conducted secretly, the large floating population of
unemployed priests rub on from day to day, in the hope of getting
ultimately some piece of ecclesiastical patronage. Yet the distress and
want amongst them are often pitiable, and, in fact, amongst the many
sufferers from the artificial preponderance given to the priesthood by
the Papal system, the poorer class of priests are not among the least or
lightest.

The nobility as a body are sure to be more or less supporters of the
established order of things. Their interests too are very much mixed up
with those of the Papacy. There is not a noble Roman family which has
not one or more of its members among the higher ranks of the priesthood,
and to a considerable degree their distinctions, such as they are, and
their temporal prospects are bound up with the Popedom. Moreover, in
this rank of the social scale the private and personal influence of the
priests, through the women of the family, is very powerful. The more
active, however, and ambitious amongst the aristocracy feel deeply the
exclusion from public life, the absence of any opening for ambition, and
the gradual impoverishment of their property, which are the necessary
evils of an absolute ecclesiastical government.

The "Bourgeoisie" stand on a very different footing. They have neither
the moral influence of the priesthood nor the material wealth of the
nobility to console them for the loss of liberty; they form indeed the
"Pariahs" of Roman society. "In other countries," a Roman once said to
me, "you have one man who lives in wealth and a thousand who live in
comfort. Here the one man lives in comfort, and the thousand live in
misery." I believe this picture is only too true. The middle classes,