and the least showy of European courts; and of itself, whatever it may do
by others, causes little money to be spent in the town. Even if the Pope
were removed from Rome, I much doubt, and I know the Romans doubt,
whether travellers would cease to come, or even come in diminished
numbers. Rome was famous centuries before Popes were heard of, and will
be equally famous centuries after they have passed away. The churches,
the museums, the galleries, the ruins, the climate, and the recollections
of Rome, would still remain equally attractive, whether the Pope were at
hand or not. Under a secular government the city would be far more
lively and, in many respects, more pleasant for strangers. An
enterprising vigorous rule could probably do much to check the malaria,
to bring the Campagna into cultivation, to render the Tiber navigable, to
promote roads and railways, and to develop the internal resources of the
Roman States. The gain accruing from these reforms and improvements
would, in Roman estimation, far outweigh any possible loss in the number
of visitors, or from the absence of the Papal court. Moreover, whether
rightly or wrongly, all Romans entertain an unshakeable conviction that
in an united Italian kingdom, Rome must ultimately be the chief, if not
the sole capital of Italy.

These reasons, which rest on abstract considerations, naturally affect
only the educated classes who are also biassed by their political
predilections. The small trading and commercial classes are, on somewhat
different grounds, equally dissatisfied with the present state of things.
The one boon they desire, is a settled government and the end of this
ruinous uncertainty. Now a priestly government supported by French
bayonets can never give Rome either order or prosperity. For the sake of
quiet itself, they wish for change. With respect to the poor, it is very
difficult to judge what their feelings or wishes may be. From what I
have seen, I doubt, whether in any part of Italy, with the exception of