< Back

The reaction in England to the kidnapping of Edgardo Mortara

Raphael Langham

<plain_text><page sequence="1">Jewish Historical Studies, volume 39, 2004 The reaction in England to the kidnapping of Edgardo Mortara* RAPHAEL LANGHAM On 3 September 2000 the Vatican announced that Pius IX had been beati? fied,1 the final step before canonization as a saint. Pius IX reigned as pope from 1846 to 1878. To Catholic historians he was the pope who formulated the doctrines of the Immaculate Conception and of Papal Infallibility. The former was formulated in 1854, published in the encyclical of 8 December 1854 and 'confirmed' by the 'Visions at Lourdes' in 1858, coincidentally at almost the same time as Edgardo Mortara was being taken by the forces of the Inquisition to Rome. The doctrine of Papal Infallibility in matters of faith and morals was announced in his encyclical of 9 November 1846 and confirmed at the First Vatican Council in 1870.2 To political historians it was during his reign that papal rule was overthrown in all the Papal States and the pope was left solely with the Vatican. To Jewish historians Pius IX was the pope who refused to return Edgardo Mortara to his family after the Inquisition had taken him. On 23 June 1858 Edgardo Mortara, a six-year-old Jewish boy, was taken by the Inquisition from his parents' house in Bologna. This city, before Italy was unified, was in Romagna, one of the Papal States. At first his parents were not told why he had been taken, but eventually it emerged that when Edgardo was a baby he had become seriously ill and a young teenage maid had baptized him by sprinkling over him some water from the kitchen and pronouncing the requisite formula. She was not concerned with saving his life, but was fearful for his soul. However, he recovered. She had recently confessed to this act and as a result the Church claimed him. It seems that once baptized, a child could not be brought up by Jewish parents as they would be unlikely to teach him the Catholic religion and its principles. Within a few days Edgardo was taken from Bologna to Rome and placed in the House of Catechumens, where new converts or lapsed Catholics were * Paper presented to the Society on 13 November 2003. 1 The Times 4 Sept. 2000, p. 1. 2 New Catholic Encyclopaedia (London 1967) 7:381, 8:1031-2, 11:408; C. Carlen, The Papal Encyclicals 1740-1878 (Raleigh, N.C. 1981) 279 and 291-3. 79</page><page sequence="2">Raphael Langham sent for instruction. The case has been comprehensively described in The Kidnapping of Edgar do Mortar a by David Kertzer.3 Many steps were taken by the family, the Jewish communities in the Papal States (particularly that of Rome) and in other Italian states to secure his release. The community of Turin, the capital of Piedmont, and Sardinia, appealed to the leaders of major Jewish communities elsewhere in Europe. This paper discusses the reaction of the community in England to that appeal and the actions taken by it and the British government. It also discusses the reactions of the secular press and of the Protestant and Catholic communities in Britain. The English Jewish community It was not until 16 July that the first news regarding Edgardo was published in Britain in a short and somewhat inaccurate news report in the Jewish Chronicle.4 The item does not seem to have created any stir or comment. On 13 August the Jewish Chronicle gave more and correct information.5 A few days later the Mortara incident was raised at a regular meeting of the Board of Deputies. One deputy remarked that it was not an uncommon occurrence in parts of Italy and victims seemed to accept the situation as one which could not be rectified. A few members suggested positive action by the Board, but others advocated caution and considered that in the absence of any formal request to the Board, 'it would be little consistent with the dignity of the Board to commit itself to any rash measures'. Although several deputies expressed their indignation and deep regret, the general feeling seemed to be that as the case had not been brought formally to the notice of the Board by the parties concerned, the Deputies could not take any official steps.6 In late August, Lionel Rothschild, who had just been able to take his seat in Parliament, wrote to Cardinal Antonelli, the secretary of state in the Vatican, enquiring what was going on. The Papal States had loans from the Rothschilds, but Lionel's letter did not mention this. The reply was bland and inconsequential and there does not appear to have been any further correspondence.7 On 3 September the Jewish Chronicle published a long leader on the affair. This held the pope solely responsible, attacked the Roman Catholic Church and expressed surprise at the lack of activity from the Board of 3 D. Kertzer, The Kidnapping of Edgardo Mortara (London 1997). 4 Jewish Chronicle (hereafter jfC) 16 July 1858, p. 245. 5 Ibid. 13 Aug. 1858, p. 275. 6 Ibid. 27 Aug. 1858, p. 293. 7 D. Kertzer (see n. 3) 89-90. 8o</page><page sequence="3">The reaction in England to the kidnapping of Edgardo Mortara Deputies.8 They did not have long to wait. The Board had received a letter from Turin in late August calling on the Jewish communities in France and England to 'look upon it as a sacred obligation to make an appeal to their respective governments'.9 The appeal was discussed at the Board meeting on 6 September and a special subcommittee was formed, to be chaired by its president Sir Moses Montefiore, with full power to take all necessary steps.10 The committee acted immediately. The next day letters were sent to the Foreign Secretary, the Earl of Malmesbury, and to the British press. The Jewish Chronicle published the memorandum from Turin on 17 September and in a leader praised the action of the Board and considered that it 'might be instrumental in the overthrow of one of the most iniquitous institutions disgracing civilisation and impeding social and moral progress'.11 It seems, according to the Morning News, that the involvement of the Board and the reports in the press had created a deep impression on the papal authorities and resulted in them permitting Edgardo's parents to see their son on two occasions.12 Other writers have attributed the meetings between parents and son to other causes.13 From its first full report in August 1858, and throughout the rest of that year and most of 1859 as well, each edition of the Jewish Chronicle contained news reports on the Mortara case, as well as frequent articles and leaders. It also mentioned a number of ideas to use extra-legal means, including brib? ing the monks in the house in which he was held or mounting a rescue attempt. One group went so far as to obtain Cavour's consent to provide sanctuary in Piedmont for Edgardo and his family if their rescue mission succeeded.14 In i860 an English Jew, Charles Alexander Scott, previously Carlo Alessandro Blumenthal, who had enlisted in Garibaldi's army in 1859, obtained Garibaldi's consent for a raid to abduct Edgardo. The plan was for a group to set out for Rome disguised as monks. But it came to noth? ing.15 The Jewish Chronicle consistently objected to these ideas on the grounds that since the pope had behaved improperly, it was he who should release Edgardo.16 What is surprising is that there were few letters on the subject and none from Jewish correspondents. Nor did Jews write to other newspapers. Were 8 JC3Sept.i858,p. 300. 9 Ibid. 10 Sept. 1858, p. 310. 10 Board of Deputies, ACC/3121/A/8/290. 11 jfC 17 Sept. 1858, pp. 316-17. 12 Morning News 29 Sept. 1858, p. 2. 13 D. Kertzer (see n. 3) 65-6. 14 C. Cavour, // carteggio Cavour-Nigra dal 1858 al 18611 Plombieres (Bologna 1926) 213. 15 The Jewish Encyclopaedia (London 1916)11:122-3. 16 JC25 Nov. 1859, p. 2. 8i</page><page sequence="4">Raphael Langham they indifferent, complacent or satisfied that all that could be done was being done? Whereas in countries such as the United States and France public meetings were organized by Jews, in Britian they did not and those that did take place were arranged by Protestant groups. The community was not completely insensitive to the affair. There was a report that some Jewish families had dismissed their Catholic maids.17 This might have been less a Mortara protest than from a fear that their children might be surreptitiously baptized. A leader in the Jewish Chronicle on 26 November called on Jews to vindi? cate the cause of humanity, as it was a Jewish boy who had been taken.18 The English Jewish community would become the natural centre of this agita? tion, it said, noting that the Board was alive to the importance of its mission. It suggested a deputation from the leading European Jewish communities to Rome, and if this failed, a solemn memorandum should be sent to every government in Europe and the Americas. It was not a call to arms in the literal sense, for it was acknowledged that its proposals were not practicable with the Jews dispersed all over the globe.19 This was followed by a proposal three weeks later that the Board of Deputies should convene protest meet? ings at the Mansion House and in every large town in the kingdom, and that an influential deputation should go to Paris with a petition requesting, in the name of the people of England, that Napoleon III intervene in the matter. Even if it did not achieve anything, it might deter the kidnappers from trying again.20 One suspects that the Jewish Chronicle already knew that the Board would do no such thing. The Board met on 22 December to consider the report of their subcom? mittee. There had been a proposal from the Evangelical Alliance, an organi? zation representing more than fifty sections of the Protestant Church in Europe,21 to send a joint delegation to France to lobby Napoleon III. The delegation would have included the Lord Mayor of London, the Lord Provost of Edinburgh and representatives from Protestant bodies through? out Western Europe. The subcommittee had rejected this and proposed to send a memorandum to the pope, to be delivered by a delegation led by Sir Moses Montefiore. The Board accepted this latter proposal.22 On 23 December Sir Moses wrote to Sir Culling Eardley, president of the Evangelical Alliance, stating that the Board considered a deputation to the emperor would be of no utility and that they would be sending a delegation 17 Ibid. 8 Oct. 1858, p. 2. 18 Ibid. 26 Nov. 1858, p. 3. 19 Ibid. p. 4. 20 Ibid. 17 Dec. 1858,^2. 21 Encyclopaedia Britannica 15th ed. (London 1974) 3:1009. 22 JC24Dec. 1858, supplement. 82</page><page sequence="5">The reaction in England to the kidnapping of Edgardo Mortara directly to the pope. The following day Sir Culling replied, listing all those who would have attended or supported the delegation to Paris. He concluded that they remained ready to help and that if the mission to Rome failed perhaps they should all go to the emperor. These letters were published in the Times}3 The leader in the Jewish Chronicle of 31 December was fully supportive of the steps taken by the Board. It made the point 'that the case has directed attention to Jews and has roused strong sympathies in favour of the oppressed. It has also raised the Jewish community in the estimation of the intelligent with their energy and zeal in pursuing the case.'24 A week later it implied that not all in the community were happy with the rather public approach to the Mortara case by the Board: 'If the fate of the Jews is to be ameliorated it will be by courageous exposure of the iniquities, not by a cowardly tacit submission to the cruelties'.25 Early in 1859 the Jewish Chronicle began to comment on the imminent war in Italy and its possible effect on the Mortara situation. For example, it hoped that England would be on the side of Victor Emanuel and Napoleon III,26 and that on the issue of the religious aspect of the dispute in Italy it supported Napoleon's view that Catholic laws could not apply. A week later it expressed the contrary view that England should remain neutral, but that at the resulting peace conference should ensure that the pope renounce much of Canon law.27 It will be observed that consistency in its views was not then a feature of the Jewish Chronicle. By 4 March the Jewish Chronicle seems to have given up hope that the Montefiore mission would succeed and was commenting that although the rescue of Edgardo was the primary objective, there were two other 'hidden purposes': 'Who would have thought of the hidden purpose when Disraeli's father had his son converted - and now England has a great Chancellor. The hidden objects of the mission are to emphasise that civilisation will no longer tolerate what Rome does to the Jews, and to stimulate the internal life of Jewish communities and their co-operation.'28 Three weeks later it doubted that the pope would see Montefiore, but considered that 'the oily Cardinal Antonelli', the pope's secretary of state, would be unlikely to refuse an interview. The most Montefiore could secure was the prevention of recurrences in the future.29 23 The Times 27 Dec. 1858, p. 5. 24 JC3iDec. 1858, p. 4. 25 Ibid. 7 Jan. 1859, p. 2. 26 Ibid. 4 Feb. 1859, p. 4. 27 Ibid. 11 Feb. 1859, p. 2. 28 Ibid. 4 March 1859, p. 4. 29 Ibid. 25 March 1859, p. 2. 83</page><page sequence="6">Raphael Langham The Jewish Chronicle was right in all respects. Montefiore's mission failed. The pope refused to see him, considering 'it was a closed question'.30 Cardinal Antonelli did grant him an interview. Odo Russell, the unofficial representative of Britain in Rome, included the following in his memoran? dum of the interview on 28 April 1959: Cardinal Antonelli considered the Mortara case a most unfortunate one; but the child once baptised, it would be contrary to the laws of the Holy See to allow it to return to its parents without that religious education to which it was entitled as a member of the Roman Catholic Church, out of which there was no salvation. When the child was old enough, 17 or 18 years of age, it would be set at liberty, and allowed to follow its own inspirations. ... It was not a case in which he had the power to yield, for he was carrying out the law of God. ... The law prohibiting the employment of Christian servants by them (the Israelites residing in the Pope's dominions) would, he hoped, prevent the recurrence of cases like that in the Mortara family.31 The Jewish Chronicle reacted to the failure of the mission by deploring the fact that the pope refused to see Sir Moses and commented that 'the Papal government has added insult to crime'. It considered that the mistake of the Board was to refuse cooperation of other communities in the mission, and this must be remedied by an appeal to public opinion throughout Europe.32 On reflection, the paper later wrote that in the end the visit was a triumph for Montefiore, as it would be one of the last of such cases and aroused the sympathy of all men.33 The French Jewish press was less kind to Montefiore. They suggested that their coreligionists across the Channel had borrowed the worst charac? teristics of Englishmen - arrogance, individuality and a wish to surmount obstacles alone for glory's sake. They considered that the mission failed because of this egoism and that had they cooperated and visited Paris and met the emperor they would have found support and not made some basic errors.34 Sour grapes perhaps, but with more than a grain of truth. Criticism can also be made of the Board's memorandum to the pope. Its two principal arguments were that the baptism was never performed correctly and, if it were, it was administered by an illiterate servant, herself still a child of fourteen, and when the infant was not in danger. It was thus 30 Letter of 26 April 1859 from Odo Russell to Sir Moses Montefiore (then in Rome). Public Record Office (hereafter PRO), FO/881/811/Inclosure 1 in No. 28. 31 Ibid. Inclosure 2 in No. 28. 327CioJunei859,p.4. 33 Ibid. 29 July 1859, p. 4. 34 Archives Israelites, Dec. 1859; Eng. trans, in JfC 16 Dec. 1859, p. 7. ?4</page><page sequence="7">The reaction in England to the kidnapping of Edgardo Mortara invalid and illegal by the laws of the pontifical government.35 With the benefit of hindsight the Board were probably ill advised to include these legal arguments as they had already been raised by the Roman Jewish community and refuted by those responsible for the law.36 They thus gave the Vatican an escape route. They should have pleaded solely on humanitar? ian and possibly on political grounds. The failure of the mission, instead of driving the leaders of the Jewish community to seek other ways and new initiatives to secure Edgardo's release, led rather to a period of inactivity on the matter. The Jewish Chronicle continued to publish news reports and leading articles on the subject, but that was all. Sir Moses' diary records that early in December 1859 the Mortara subcommittee wrote to Sir Culling Eardley, who was still pursuing the Mortara case actively, that 'having done all in their power in the Mortara case, they could not attempt to do more, but hoped he would persevere and be successful'.37 This letter stirred up a hornets nest. Momolo Mortara, the father of Edgardo, was visiting London at the time hoping to persuade the Board that they should ask the British government to support a memoran? dum he intended submitting to each representative at the forthcoming peace conference on Italy in Paris. Initially the Board declined to help.38 When news of this got out, a series of articles attacking the decision appeared in the Jewish Chronicle39 and 450 members of the London and Provincial Jewish communities signed a petition demanding that the Board support Momolo Mortara. The petition read: We, the Undersigned, fully sensible of the strenuous efforts, made by your Board, and the exertions of your venerable President, Sir Moses Montefiore, for the RESCUE OF EDGARDO MORTARA, are of opinion that the approaching CONGRESS presents a providential opportunity to the Board for eliciting the sense of Europe on the Forcible Abduction of the Child, by presenting, or causing to be presented at such Congress of nations the prayer of the Parents for the restoration, and the protest of the community against the violation of our holy faith and the rights of humanity. And we, the undersigned, feel that it is a sacred duty of every co-religionist to exert himself to the utmost for the restoration of the Child, whose bereaved Father appeals now personally to our holiest sympathies; and we further 35 Board of Deputies, ACC/3121/A/9/39-41; also in JC 22 July 1859, p. 8. 36 The main arguments used and an analysis of them is contained in S. Stahl, 'The Mortara Affair, 1858: Reflections of the Struggle to Maintain the Temporal Power of the Papacy', unpublished PhD thesis (Saint Louis University 1987) 44-86. 37 L. Loewe (ed.) Diaries of Sir Moses and Lady Montefiore (London 1983) 2:107. 38 Board of Deputies, ACC/3121/03/i/i/p. 15. 39 JCq Dec. 1859, pp. 2, 4, 5; 16 Dec. 1859, pp. 1, 2, 5, 7: 23 Dec. 1859, p. 2. 85</page><page sequence="8">Raphael Langham believe that this our opinion is shared by the large majority of the Jewish community, who consider that the adoption of the necessary measures for the purpose naturally comes within the province of your Board; and we therefore respectfully request you to take advantage of the approaching Congress, and thus fulfil the duty we owe to the God of Israel, to the community you repre? sent, and to the sacredness of the cause itself.40 At its meeting on 26 December the Board bowed to this pressure and changed its mind. A meeting of the Mortara subcommittee was held a week later on 2 January i860, a draft of a proposed memorandum to the Congress was approved and the president, Sir Moses Montefiore, was asked to consult with the government.41 All this proved to be in vain, because the peace conference was postponed and eventually abandoned. During i860 the Jewish Chronicle continued to report the affair, but only towards the end of the year was the Jewish community involved, other than in assisting to raise money to help the Mortaras, who had lost their business as a result of their absences from Bologna trying to obtain their son's release. The recently formed Alliance Israelite Universelle wrote to Sir Culling and the Board asking them to come to Paris with a delegation to meet the emperor and raise the issue of Mortara,42 but this was rejected by the Board.43 The Jewish Chronicle was not happy with this turn of events, and in a leader on 14 December i860 wrote 'after Cavour and Garibaldi it was Mortara who rendered the most eminent service to the Italian cause. It was Mortara that made people see that the Pope hadn't changed his spots. The Papacy, in refusing to listen to the voice of justice, had committed moral suicide.'44 A few days later the Board considered a further approach from the Alliance and agreed to a meeting on 20 December to consider suggestions to facilitate the release of Edgardo.45 Sir Moses did not attend the meeting as he was indisposed, but this was possibly a diplomatic illness. The Board was divided on how to respond and decided they would further consider the Mortara case at an early meeting when the president was present.46 In late February 1861 the Board decided, subject to consultations with the Foreign Office, to write to Victor Emanuel on the subject of Mortara, in the likely event that he became king of Italy.47 When he was duly installed, a 40 JCi?Dec. 1859, P- 1. 41 Board of Deputies, ACC/3121 / C13 /1 /1 /22-23. 42 JC26 Oct. i860, p. 7. 43 Board of Deputies, ACC/3121/A/9/108-9. 44 14 Dec. i860, p. 4. 45 Ibid. 21 Dec. i860, pp. 5-6. 46 Ibid. 28 Dec. i860, p. 5. 47 Board of Deputies, ACC/3121 / A/q/ 131 ? 86</page><page sequence="9">The reaction in England to the kidnapping of Edgardo Mortara draft letter to him was sent to the Foreign Office. The reply said that there was no point in sending the letter since the king of Italy did not possess Rome and had no influence there. The Board decided not to write to the king.48 This appears to be the last time that the Mortara affair was mentioned at a meeting of the Board of Deputies, and apart from a few scattered news reports in the Jewish Chronicle it was the end of the involvement of the English Jewish community in the affair. The British Government At the time Edgardo was kidnapped Britain had a Conservative govern? ment, with the Earl of Derby as prime minister, the Earl of Malmesbury as foreign secretary and Disraeli as chancellor of the exchequer. Following a general election in June 1859 a Liberal government assumed office, with Palmerston as prime minister, Lord John Russell as foreign secretary and Gladstone as chancellor of the exchequer. According to C. T. Mclntire, both the Conservative and Liberal govern? ments from 1858 onwards 'used the diplomatic power and moral influence of Great Britain to work for the end of Papal temporal power as then consti? tuted'.49 The Conservatives were comparatively conciliatory towards the pope, looking to him to adopt reforms, whereas the Liberals were vigor? ously hostile and sought to assist the overthrow of papal temporal power. The vast majority of the British population were not only anti-Catholic, but considered it wrong in principle that priests should govern a State, and supported the government's policy towards the pope and Italy.50 Thus, when the Mortara events became known, it was a heaven-sent opportunity to demonstrate what was wrong with papal power. Parliament was not sitting at the time the news of Mortara reached England, but in subsequent sessions there were many debates on the situa? tion in Italy and in the papal states. There was never, though, any mention of Mortara, even by Lionel Rothschild or Benjamin Disraeli, who was the spokesman on foreign affairs in the House of Commons for the Conservatives, or by Henry Drummond MP, who had informed the Board of Deputies in September 1858 that he would raise the matter in the House of Commons.51 Sir Moses wrote to the foreign secretary on 7 September 1858 regarding 48 Ibid.ACC/3i2i/A/9/i47-9 49 C. T. Mclntire, England against the Papacy 1858-1861: Tories, Liberals and the Overthrow of Papal Temporal Power during the Italian Risorgimento (Cambridge 1983) 2. 50 Ibid. 4. 51 15 Oct. 1858, 5. 8?</page><page sequence="10">Raphael Langham the Mortara incident and within a couple of days Lord Malmesbury wrote to Lord Cowley, the British ambassador to France, asking for the views of the French government and the course they intended to pursue with regard to it.52 Cowley replied that he had been told that the French ambassador to Rome had had an audience with the pope who said that he was sorry such an event should have taken place, but that, as the leader of the Catholic Church, he was not able to return the child to Judaism.53 Subsequently he wrote that on an unofficial basis the French had made further representa? tions, but to no avail. However, Count Walewski, the French foreign minis? ter, 'was hoping for better success following official instructions to protest sent to their Ambassador in Rome'.54 'Official' implies that Napoleon III was supportive. The British government then took action and a letter was sent on 4 October to the British representative in Florence (there was none in Rome), enclosing the letters from Cowley and instructing him to inform the papal government of the sensation the Mortara case had created in Britain, and to support the representations of the French.55 Perhaps it is surprising that the British government should have taken any action, given that the Mortara family were not British citizens and that Britain had no diplomatic relations with Rome. Maybe the government wanted to demonstrate support for the French, either because of public opinion in Britain, or because later that week a delegation from the Board of Deputies was going to the Foreign Office. Conceivably it was a humanitarian gesture. The Board delegation met Foreign Office officials later that week. (Lord Malmesbury was at his estate in Scotland where he had been since early September.56) Although no minutes or report of that meeting are extant, it seems from the report of the following meeting of the Board that they had been advised that while the British and French governments were pressing the case with the papal government, the Board should defer their intended appeal to all European powers and their plan to send a deputation to the pope.57 So far so good. But on 14 October Malmesbury sent a telegram and a letter to our man in Florence, referring to the letter of 4 October and instructing him to take no further steps in the matter.58 Why did the 52 PROFO/88i/8n/2and3. 53 Ibid. FO/881/811/5. 54 Ibid.FO/881/811/Qandio. 55 Ibid.FO/88i/8n/ii. . 56 H. Hearder, 'The Foreign Policy of Lord Malmesbury, 1858-9', PhD thesis (University of London, June 1954) 403. 57 jfC 15 Oct. 1858, p. 5. 58 PROFO/881/811/15. ??</page><page sequence="11">The reaction in England to the kidnapping of Edgardo Mortara government change its mind and retract what seems a rather mild protest? Maybe it was discussed at the cabinet or with other ministers or within the Foreign Office and other counsels prevailed? Maybe it was all a political game to prevent or delay the Board of Deputies from taking any action, and once the Board had agreed at their meeting on 11 October the instruction for a protest could be withdrawn? Unfortunately no documents seem to be extant that would throw any light on this sudden change in policy. But there is a clue. It is known that Malmesbury was at his estate in Scotland at the time, and according to his diary one of his house guests from 3 October was Sir James Hudson, ambassador in Turin. Perhaps he advised against making the protest. From this time on, British governments refused to make any representa? tions to the pope regarding Mortara. However, the government, although not taking any action, continued to be concerned about Mortara, as can be shown by a letter from Cowley to Malmesbury on 19 January 1859: 'the conviction must, I fear, force itself upon your mind, that nothing short of the overthrow of the Pope's temporal authority can afford a chance of better government. I believe that in the case of the Jew boy Mortara, the French government certainly went as far as to ascertain confidentially whether the Pope would yield to menace if employed by the Imperial Government; and the answer was, "if you try to make me violate my conscience, either you must withdraw your troops, and leave me to the protection of God, or you must permit me to quit Rome myself".'59 The Foreign Office continued to be of help and in February 1859 they supplied Sir Moses with introductory letters authorizing several parties to afford him such assistance as they could, to help with the objects of his mission.60 These letters were prepared even though Malmesbury entertained doubts as to the result of the mission.61 There was no change in policy regarding Mortara with the change of government in June 1859. The next important event involving the govern? ment in respect of Mortara was the meeting of Lord John Russell, the new foreign secretary, with a high-powered delegation of leading Protestant clergymen and laymen in November 1859. Lord John, while expressing sympathy to the cause, was of the view that one had to respect the laws of each nation even if one might disagree with them. He continued: I can only say that the matter is to be a good deal considered before the name of the British nation is put forward by the ministerial organ of this country in order to make representations and to secure redress. ... It is part no doubt of 59 Ibid.FO/881/771/31. 60 Ibid. FO/881/811/26. 61 Loewe (see n. 37) 87. 89</page><page sequence="12">Raphael Langham the legislation of Rome, and of their views of the necessity of belonging to the Roman Catholic Church, which would make the Roman Catholic Church or the Roman authorities entirely opposed to any representation that might be made, and therefore I shall consider it of no use whatever to go to the Papal authorities and make representations to them.62 This really was the end of the road in trying to persuade the government to become involved directly. It was sympathetic, but wanted to end the tempo? ral power of the pope. The continued refusal of the pope to return Edgardo to his parents was useful to the government since it enraged public opinion in the country, thus facilitating political action against the pope. One must conclude that it was not in the political interests of the British government for Edgardo to be returned, and that the British government made no repre? sentations for this reason, not because they thought representations would be counter-productive. The secular press From late August 1858, when the British press began reporting the Mortara case, it was scarcely out of the news for many months. The first mention was from the Paris correspondent of The Globe who, after reporting the event, suggested that it was a fitting issue for Disraeli (then chancellor of the exchequer) as well as his 'brother' Achille Foulds, who was then the chief minister in Napoleon Ill's cabinet.63 Both were born Jews (which is presumably why the reporter referred to them as 'brothers'). Sir Moses had written to the press following the Board of Deputies meet? ing and many newspapers, including The Times, published the letter and the appeal from the Jewish community in Turin.64 Of particular interest are the comments and the leaders on the subject, of which there were many. All deplored the kidnapping, but varied in attributing blame, in their preferred solutions and whether or how the British government should become involved. To a large extent the comments in the papers reflected their prin? ciples and political stances. There were those that blamed the pope and used it as an opportunity to launch yet another attack on Roman Catholics generally. A good example is this comment from the Spectator. Europe is at this moment in full astonishment, which has not yet had time to kindle into indignation, at one of those acts of the Romish Church which show that it retains in an unmitigated shape that habit and even necessity of 62 JCiiNov. 1859, p. 7. 63 The Globe 23 Aug. 1858, p. 1. 64 The Times 9 Sept. 1858, p. 8. 90</page><page sequence="13">The reaction in England to the kidnapping of Edgardo Mortara stupid and terrible tyranny, which makes it the very enemy of mankind. Not all the fire and sword with which she desolated the world in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries was so horrible in principle as the theft of the child of Mortara, the Jewish inhabitant of Bologna; a theft, moreover, which renders dangerous in the highest degree every sort of intercourse between Romanist and Protestant households.65 It should be noted that the Spectator was at that time considered liberal in its principles. Other journals, while also blaming the pope, were less anti-Catholic, but used the case as an argument against the temporal powers of the Church. For example, the Saturday Review wrote: Tn the secular dominions of the Holy See, the Sovereign is obliged to practise what, in another capacity, he is perpetually preaching. Decency and consistency compel the Pope, wher? ever he is a temporal Monarch, to govern in a way which, if universally followed, would, as he and his advisers are perfectly well aware, either consign the world to idiocy or goad it to raving madness. The truth, as respects the Papacy, that the half is vastly more than the whole, is well illus? trated by the Mortara case.'66 The Daily Telegraph claimed that 'the greatest stain that ever afflicted this earth will be removed the day her power is gone. May we live to see that day!'67 The Times also suggested that the Mortara situation arose because of the temporal power of the pope and proposed that the British government should use diplomatic action towards the suppres? sion of this temporal power.68 Napoleon III, the emperor of France, was unpopular with many sections of the press and some papers saw him as partly to blame since there were French troops in Rome. These papers, together with others, thought that the solution lay through Napoleon III. For example, the Daily News suggested the fault lay with Austrian and French forces in Italy and contin? ued, ironically perhaps, that as soon as Napoleon heard of it he would 'make it a point of honour to vindicate the primary rights of paternity . . . and restore the child to the tenderness of his parents'.69 The Manchester Guardian considered that if such forced conversions become frequent our Imperial ally France would be forced 'to take some order with his saintly protege'.70 A leader in th&lt;* Daily Telegraph, while condemning the pope, also condemned France for not protesting properly.71 The Morning Advertiser 65 Spectator 23 Oct. 1858, p. 1116. 66 Saturday Review 29 Oct. 1858, p. 502. 67 Quoted in JC 2 Nov. 1858, p. 3. 68 The Times 9 Nov. 1859, p. 8. 69 Daily News 2 Oct. 1858, p. 4. 70 Manchester Guardian 10 Sept. 1858, p. 2; 21 Oct. 1858, p. 2. 71 AwTy Telegraph 19 Oct. 1858, p. 4. 9i</page><page sequence="14">Raphael Langham also criticized Napoleon, pointing out that he was the real political sover? eign of the Papal States and, while not charging him with active participa? tion in the kidnapping, 'censurfed] him in the strongest terms for the culpable acquiescence he has exhibited in the matter by his silence'.72 It is now known through documents discovered by David Kertzer and published in his recent book, Unholy War, that Napoleon III tried hard through diplo? matic means to secure Mortara's release.73 He could also have used force, for the pope was guarded by French troops, but he chose not to do so, perhaps for the same cynical reason as was suggested for the British govern? ment's stance - leaving Mortara kidnapped helped keep public opinion against the pope. Then there were the chauvinists who claimed it could not happen here. For example, the Daily News wrote that 'We in this favoured heretical land are happily spared the difficulty of attempting to reconcile the absolute pretensions of a Church which knows no salvation for souls beyond its pale, with the common instincts and affections of humanity'.74 The Times considered the issue totally beyond the sphere of English ideas and 'foreign to anything that could arise in our own social state'.75 The Saturday Review considered 'the very existence of England, and its system, social, religious, and political, is the strongest declaration against the Mortara abduction'.76 There was also an element of philo-Semitism in the support. For ex? ample, the Morning Advertiser in its first leader on the affair wrote that it considers it 'a duty on the part of our government, at whatever cost, to use its utmost power for the purpose of bringing the Jewish people into a state of immunity from the shameful abuses to which they are subject'. In refer? ring to the recent change in the oath position in Parliament it concludes: 'We certainly now, more than in former days, must regard the Jewish people as identified with our country, and entitled to claim the immunities of the British nation'.77 Philo-Semitism in Britain and its bearing on the Mortara affair has been discussed by Bill and Hilary Rubinstein in their Philosemitism: Admiration and Support in the English-Speaking World for Jews, i840-igjg.7S Generally, however, the fact that Edgardo was Jewish seemed less impor? tant than what was seen as an outrage against humanity and the modern 72 Morning Advertiser 24 Nov. 1858, p. 4. 73 D. Kertzer, Unholy War: The Vatican's Role in the Rise of Modern Anti-Semitism (London 2003) 120-4. 74 Daily News 25 Oct. 1858, p. 4. 75 The Times 26 Oct. 1858, p. 6d. 76 Saturday Review 12 Nov. 1859, p. 579. 77 Morning Advertiser 9 Sept. 1858, p. 4. 78 W. and H. Rubinstein, Philosemitism: Admiration and Support in the English-Speaking World for Jews, 1840-1939 (London 1999). 92</page><page sequence="15">The reaction in England to the kidnapping of Edgardo Mortara world. For example, the Paris correspondent of the Morning Advertiser wrote 'it is a direct violation of every principle of morality and rectitude, a negation of the rights of family and domicile, and the transfer of all author? ity into the Pope's hands'.79 Following the publication of the protest peti? tion, to be discussed below, The Times commented that 'the men who have subscribed this protest are no more actuated by hostility to the Papacy than they are by any undue tenderness to those of the Jewish persuasion. But they know what is due between man and man.'80 Six days later it stated that there was 'a right which lies at the foundation of civil society - the right of every parent, to maintain and educate his child, to bring him up in his own faith'.81 A few papers, however, including The Times, the Observer and the Manchester Guardian, suggested that the solution lay in the hands of Jewish financiers such as the Rothschilds who had loans outstanding with the Vatican.82 Very few papers thought it was an issue for the British govern? ment. In contrast, the Morning Advertiser considered that if Napoleon did not take action, our government should nudge him, and that in any event our government should take up the matter since 'The country expects that the Government will at last come out with a declaration of its own on this Mortara affair, which has become a scandal and a reproach to the age we live in'. 'If any noble spirit existed in our rulers, they would, without negotia? tion, demand the deliverance of the stolen child, or at once proceed to extremities.'83 Again The Times thought it was not a problem for England, since we had no relations with Rome.84 The weekly satirical magazine Punch was in its element. It advised the Chief Rabbi, Dr Nathan Marcus Adler, not to travel in the same railway carriage as Cardinal Wiseman, lest he falls asleep and wakes up to find himself a Catholic - although they could not resist a slightly anti-Semitic jibe that Jews were not very often caught napping.85 It also reported that Cardinal Wiseman had had a fire-engine filled with holy water and that at the next meeting of the Protestant Association the participants would be sprayed with water and baptized by the Cardinal. It advised all true Protestants to take their umbrellas.86 In early 1859, when the Prince of 79 Morning Advertiser 5 Oct. 1858, p. 5. 80 The Times 20 Oct. 1859, p. 6. 81 Ibid. 26 Oct. 1859, p. 6. 82 Manchester Guardian 10 Sept. 1858, p. 2; Observer 12 Sept. 1858, p. 2; The Times 26 Oct. 1858, p. 6d. 83 Morning Advertiser 9 Sept. 1858, p. 4; 24 Nov. 1858, p. 4. 84 7%* 7i?i? 26 Oct. 1858, p. 6d. 85 /W/z 25 Sept. 58, p. 124. 86 Ibid. 6 Nov. 58, p. 186. 93</page><page sequence="16">Raphael Langham Wales visited Rome, Punch reported that arrangements had been made for the Prince of Wales to have a private audience with the pope, who had prepared a beautiful mosaic table to present to the prince. It suggested that the Prince of Wales might not want to accept the gift from the pope, 'whose conduct in the Mortara case shows that the moral sense of his Holiness is dormant in relation to a peculiar people. The young Prince will perhaps be afraid that in taking anything mosaic at the gift of Pius he may be receiving stolen goods.'87 The Protestant reaction Various Protestant organizations were supportive, holding protest meetings and preparing memoranda to the government. Their motivations were mixed. On 4 November 1858 the Protestant Association wrote to Lord Malmesbury enclosing a memorandum regarding Mortara. Anticipating that the government might contend that it had no right to interfere in matters relating to the laws or administration of a foreign country, they drew attention to two recent cases not involving British citizens in which successful representations had been made by the British government. The reply ignored the point about previous cases and stated that they considered 'that the interference of the Protestant Government of Great Britain would be entirely unavailing after the earnest efforts of Catholic States have failed'.88 On 19 November the Scottish Reformation Society, and on 2 December the Protestant Alliance, sent memoranda on Mortara to the Foreign Office. The replies were similar to that given to the Protestant Association. The Protestant Association had particularly anti-Catholic motives, and in their journal the Protestant Magazine they used the Mortara case to publish a diatribe against the Catholic Church and to consider that British legisla? tion 'must be compelled to acknowledge the iniquitous nature of the Papal system and the danger of giving any power or ascendancy to it in the British dominions or dependencies'.89 The Protestant Alliance, formed in 1851, had as its main object 'not merely to oppose recent aggression of the Pope ... but to maintain and defend against all the encroachments of Papacy... '90 Thus the three Protestant organizations that wrote to the government on Mortara probably had anti-Catholicism as their main motive. Another society that took up the cause was the London Society for Promoting Christianity among Jews. Their concern was expressed in their 87 Ibid. 19 Feb. 1859, p. 73. 88 PROFO/88i/8n/i6andi7. 89 Protestant Magazine XX (1858) 149-53 and 161-6. 90 The Second Annual Report of the Protestant Alliance (London 1853) 1. 94</page><page sequence="17">The reaction in England to the kidnapping of Edgardo Mortara journal Jewish Intelligence, which wrote that 'Nothing can obviously be more entirely contrary to the spirit of Christianity, or more calculated to cause our Jewish brethren to misunderstand and reject the only Saviour of mankind, than such instances of wrong and oppression, as that. ...'91 Clearly, their concern was less for Mortara than for the bad effect it might have on their efforts to convert Jews. The Jewish Chronicle was particularly concerned with this point, and in a leading article concluded that 'the oppo? sition of the Jew to Christianity is directed against all its forms. Momolo Mortara would have just as much objected to his son being brought up a Protestant as a Roman Catholic.'92 The leading role in the protests was played by the evangelical wing of the Church led by the Evangelical Alliance. This society included most of the non-conformist Churches such as Methodists and Baptists. Its President was Sir Culling Eardley, one of whose great-grandparents had been Sir Sampson Gideon the Jewish financier. Sir Culling was also on the manage? ment committee of the Protestant Alliance. He was a sort of eighteenth century Ian Paisley, but his motivation in the Mortara case was humanitarian and liberal as well as anti-Catholic. A number of leading Jews were suspicious of the objects of the Alliance and refused to cooperate with some of its proposed actions regarding Mortara. However, a retrospective article published in November 1877 in the Jewish Chronicle was of the view that the Alliance did not have conversionist purposes but was pursuing humanitarian objects on Christian grounds.93 The journals of the non-conformist Churches published many articles on Mortara and all were appalled at what had happened, many taking the opportunity to criticize the Roman Catholic Church. The Church of England journals hardly mentioned the affair, but those on its right wing were split. The English Churchman, an Anglo-Catholic weekly, writing about the failure of Sir Moses' visit to Rome, stated that 'These Jews teach the Pope much better Christianity than he teaches them, for their teaching is founded upon a commandment of God which he has grossly violated in this case'.94 In contrast, The Union, a Conservative and High Church weekly, tended to support the pope and made snide remarks about Jews, consider? ing that the pope was right, 'as the child is old enough to value the grace of baptism and to be resolved to continue a Christian; were he given up, he would be forcibly subjected to the Jewish rite, against his will'.95 Following the failure of the Montefiore mission the baton seems to have 91 Jewish Intelligence i Oct. 1858, pp. 317-18. 92 JC 12 Nov. 1858, p. 4. 93 Ibid. 19 Oct. 1877, p. 2. 94 English Churchman 21 July 1859, p. 693. 95 Union 20 Oct. 18^8, d. 6qq. 95</page><page sequence="18">Raphael Langham been passed to a committee under the leadership of Alderman Wire, the Lord Mayor of London, and Sir Culling Eardley of the Protestant Alliance. Alderman Wire had accompanied Sir Moses on his mission to the Middle East in connection with the Damascus Blood Libel in 1840.96 The commit? tee had been formed in late 1858 with a view to arranging a petition signed by leading Christians, and to go to Paris jointly with representatives of the Board of Deputies. When this proposal for a joint deputation fell through, the committee suspended its activities until it knew the results of Sir Moses' mission. It then revived the idea of a protest petition. The Board was asked to help defray part of the ?1000 cost of publication of the protest, but decided not to do so as the Jewish protest had already been published.97 The petition was published in The Times on 19 October 1859 ana&lt; a coPv of this remarkable document is appended. The protest was signed by the great and the good, including three archbishops, twenty-six dukes and other peers, twenty bishops, thirty-four MPs, sixty-eight mayors, eleven provosts, as well as important city dignitaries and leading professionals.98 In his diary, Sir Moses wrote that more than two thousand people signed the petition.99 The Jewish Chronicle commented that it was 'an event unique in its time' and 'The protest is an apology which British Christianity makes to Judaism for the misdeeds of Roman Christianity. It is the first public admis? sion by a Christian nation that Jews have been wronged in the name of Christianity.'100 The protest was sent to the government, and the French ambassador and a delegation of some of the leaders had a meeting with Lord John Russell (as noted earlier). At about the same time the Board also considered a proposal from Sir Culling Eardley to hold a public meeting of Jews and Christians at Mansion House to appoint a joint deputation to present a memorial to King Victor Emanuel. Most deputies opposed this as it 'might give rise to intemperate remarks on Roman Catholicism, and on Roman Catholics who had the power of avenging on the Jews living among them any insult that might be offered to their religion by an unwary speaker'.101 The Catholic reaction The Board of Deputies sent copies of The Times article of 9 September, containing the plea from Turin, to 1800 Roman Catholic clergy in Britain, 96 Law Times 17 Nov. i860, p. 36. 97 JfC 19 Aug. 1859, p. 5. 98 Ibid. p. 6. 99 Loewe (see n. 37) 103. 100 7C28 Oct. 1859, p. 4. 101 Ibid. 1 March 1861, p. 5. 96</page><page sequence="19">The reaction in England to the kidnapping of Edgardo Mortara of whom some returned slips either defaced or half burnt.102 Only one gave support. He was George Oliver, a somewhat maverick clergyman, who wrote a letter to Alex Alexander that was published in the Western Times103 and reproduced in the Jewish Chronicle, describing the Mortara kidnapping as 'an abominable act'.104 In October the Jewish Chronicle mentioned that Lionel Rothschild had been in correspondence with Cardinal Wiseman, but that the Cardinal's reply had been evasive.105 No record of this correspon? dence has come to light. This seems to have been an issue that most Catholics in Britain tried to avoid. Josef Altholz, in a paper published m Jewish Social Studies in 1961, concluded that 'It was not the abduction of a Jewish boy, but the Protestant criticisms of the Pope, that interested English Catholics'.106 This view on the issue has continued to exercise Catholics. In his book on the English Catholic Church (which appeared in 1984), Edward Norman comments that 'the case of Edgar Mortara soon became a European scandal, in a campaign of carefully contrived vilification got up by liberal and Protestant newspapers'.107 The main Catholic weekly paper, The Weekly Register, set out the Catholic position. There were essentially three arguments. Even if a person had been baptized illicitly, for example a child without the consent of a parent, the baptism was valid provided it was carried out correctly, and it might even be licit if the child was mortally ill. Interrogation of the maid had demonstrated that the baptism procedure was correct, and the child was thus a Catholic and had to be brought up with a Catholic education. Secondly, there was a law that Jews could not employ Catholic servants, and it was argued that this law was introduced so as to prevent cases of illicit baptism, since Canon law required servants to baptize non-Catholic chil? dren in the event of what might seem mortal illness. Edgar's parents were aware of and had defied this law and thus brought their problem on them? selves. Thirdly, it seems that the seven-year-old boy was something of a prodigy and had embraced the Catholic religion with great fervour and enthusiasm.108 These arguments were reiterated in the authoritative quar? terly Dublin Review, Cardinal Wiseman's own journal.109 Similar arguments 102 Ibid. 15 Oct. 1858, p. 5. 103 Western Times 2 Oct. 1858, p. 3. 104 JC 15 Oct. 1858, p. 3. 105 Ibid. 29 Oct. 1858, p. 2. 106 J. Altholz, 'A Note on the English Catholic Reaction to the Mortara Case\ Jewish Social Studies XXIII (1961)111. 107 E. Norman, The English Catholic Church in the Nineteenth Century (Oxford 1984) 187. 108 Weekly Register 23 Oct. 1858, p. 1 and 30 Oct. 1858, p. 9. 109 W. Finlayson, 'The Mortara Case and the Murphy Case', Dublin Review XLVI (April 1859) 19-42. 97</page><page sequence="20">Raphael Langham were advanced in correspondence between Sir Culling and Dr Paul Cullen, the Archbishop of Dublin in 1859.110 Plainly, the Catholic Church in Britain felt that it was under attack and everyone rallied round. Those who were unhappy about the kidnapping kept their heads down. The end of the story The reaction in Britain to the kidnapping of Edgardo Mortara was enor? mous, but apart from the response of the Jewish community it had little to do with his Jewishness. Everyone seemed to have their own agenda and motives. But there remains a question. The Mortara affair aroused opinion around the world, not only among Jewish but also among Protestant and Catholic institutions, lay people, the press and governments. This was unusual since there had been many previ? ous cases of forced baptism of Jewish children that had gone virtually un? noticed.111 About eighteen months after the event, the Jewish Chronicle speculated as to why this particular case should have created such a furore and suggested that it was 'the spirit of the age. It was neither the place nor the nature of the crime but the time at which it was committed.'112 Looking back nearly 150 years later, this still seems the best reason. The emancipated Jewish communities in Western Europe and the United States were becom? ing increasingly self-confident and were flexing their muscles. It was the period of the Risorgimento in Italy and the biggest obstacle to unification was seen as the pope's insistence on his temporal rule in the Papal States. Cavour drew attention to the Mortara incident and made good use of it for propaganda and other purposes.113 In much of the rest of the world, papal rule was seen as an anachronism with no justification, and the Mortara inci? dent was a heaven-sent opportunity to demonstrate this. In 1859 there was an uprising in Bologna and papal rule was overthrown. Father Feletti, the inquisitor of Bologna, was arrested and charged with kidnapping Edgardo Mortara. At his trial he pleaded that he was only acting under orders and doing his duty. At that time this was an exonerating reason. Unfortunately he was unable to produce any documentary support? ing evidence, because during the uprising the Inquisition had burned all their papers. He was found guilty by the magistrate and sent to prison, but 110 P. MacSuibhne, Paul Gullen and his Contemporaries, with their Letters from 1820-1902 (Leinster 1961-77) 319-23. 111 C. Roth, 'Forced Baptisms in Italy', Jewish Quarterly Review New Series XXVII (1936-7) 117-36. 112 JC6 Jan. i860, p. 4. 113 C. Cavour (see n. 14) 213. For the French original and translation see Appendix 2. 98</page><page sequence="21">The reaction in England to the kidnapping of Edgardo Mortara appealed to a higher court. The second trial was held about three months later and in the meantime his lawyers were able to procure evidence that he had been ordered by the papal government to take Edgardo. He was released from jail. What happened to poor Edgardo? By i860 most of Italy was united as one country and the pope had lost power in all the Papal States except for the region around Rome. Here he was protected by a garrison of French troops. Edgardo was in this area, and thus still under papal jurisdiction. In 1870 the French garrison was withdrawn because of the outbreak of the Franco-Prussian war. Immediately Italian troops occupied Rome and the pope was limited to the Vatican. Edgardo was freed from the pope's temporal rule. One of his brothers immediately travelled to Rome from Turin, where the family had moved in the meantime. The brother met Edgardo and suggested he should revert to Judaism and thus reunite the family. Edgardo said that he fully wanted the family to be reunited, but the solution lay in their all becoming Catholics. There was no meeting of minds. In due course Edgardo became a priest and an ambassador for the Vatican. He was highly talented, spoke four or five languages and apparently preached excellent sermons. He travelled widely throughout Italy and the rest of Europe and even visited the United States. His family even went to hear him preach whenever he was in Turin; he was also observed in a kosher restaurant with his brother. He attended his mother's funeral, but there is no record of him sitting Shivah. He retired to an abbey in Belgium and died there on 11 March 1940, a few weeks before German troops invaded Belgium and began rounding up those of Jewish blood. Thus the wheel did not quite turn full circle. APPENDIX I The Protestant Protest Petition The following petition was published in The Times on 19 October 1859: Whereas a Jewish child, Edgar Mortara, son of Momolo Mortara, late of Bologna, in Italy, was, on the 24th of June, 1858, forcibly seized and taken from his parents, by order of the Cardinal Viale Prela, Archbishop of Bologna and Legate of Pope Pius IX: 'And whereas the ground of the said seizure was, that the said child, Edgar Mortara, had been secretly baptised by a Roman Catholic maidservant six years previously, being then of the age of twelve months: 'And whereas the said child was, by order of the said Cardinal Legate, conveyed by night, under an escort of Gendarmes, to the Convent of San 99</page><page sequence="22">Raphael Langham Pietro inVincoli at Rome, and is there detained contrary to the wish, and notwithstanding the protestations of his parents: And whereas the Government of France has in vain urged the Court of Rome to restore the said child to his parents: And whereas Sir Moses Montefiore, Bart., at the request of the deputies of the British Jews, made on the 22nd December, 1858, went to Rome in their name, to present a memorial to the Pope, signed by the whole of the said deputies, asking for the liberation of the said child Edgar Mortara; and whereas the Pope refused even to see Sir Moses Montefiore; and Cardinal Antonelli, Minister of State, has declared to Sir Moses Montefiore that the Roman Government will not release the child: And whereas it is a dishonour to Christianity in the eyes of Jews among all nations that the seizure and detention of the said child, Edgar Mortara, should be supposed to be consistent with the principles of the Christian religion: Now we, the undersigned British Christians, do hereby protest, and declare that the proceedings of the Pope of Rome in taking away the Jewish child Edgar Mortara from his parents, and educating him, contrary to his parents' will, in the Roman Catholic faith, are repulsive to the instincts of humanity, and in violation of parental rights and authority, as recognised in the laws and usages of all civilised nations, and, above all, in direct opposition to the spirit and precepts of the Christian religion'.114 APPENDIX II Cavours text L'empereur a ete enchante de Paffaire Mortara comme de tout ce qui peut compromettre le Pape aux yeux de l'Europe et des Catholiques moderes. Plus il aura de griefs ? faire valoir contre lui, plus il lui sera facile de lui imposer les sacrifices que la reorganisation de l'ltalie reclame. A cet egard notre role est bien simple. Nous devons faire ressortir de toutes les fa?ons les efforts de l'empereur pour amener le Pape, ? suivre une ligne politique plus raisonnable. Nous devons exagerer le courage et l'energie que Gramont deploie et conclure en deplorant que la conduite du Pape demontre Pimpossibilite absolue de lui conserver le pouvoir temporal au del? des murs de Rome. 'The Emperor was delighted by the Mortara affair as in all matters that could compromise the Pope in the eyes of Europe and moderate Catholics. 114 The Times 19 Oct. 1859, p. 6. 100</page><page sequence="23">The reaction in England to the kidnapping of Edgardo Mortara The more grievances against him, the easier it would be to impose sacrifices that the re-organisation of Italy would need. Our role in this matter is simple. We must bring to light in all ways the Emperor's efforts to persuade the Pope to follow a more reasonable political line. We must emphasize the courage and energy that Gramont [French ambassador to Rome] displays and conclude in deploring that the Pope's conduct shows that it is absolutely impossible for him to be able to keep temporal power beyond the walls of Rome.' IOI</page></plain_text>