A Diplomatic Incident: When Washington Closed Our Vatican Ministry

IN 1867 Pope Pius IX, proscribing American Protestant worship on strictly Roman soil, ordered its removal to a point outside the Roman walls. According to the pontifical conviction, Rome was the consecrated centre of a single universal Church and an exclusively Catholic city. To the mind of the average non-Catholic American this proscription and exile reflected ancient Rome’s refusal to enfranchise the ‘barbarians’ of Tivoli. The order fired the indignation of President Andrew Johnson, Secretary of State William H. Seward, and the Congress of the United States. Our ministry to the Holy See was closed summarily, and our representative practically withdrawn. Official Washington’s independence was shown further by her rather unprecedented failure to proffer any explanation to the Supreme Pontiff.

Now, Secretary of State Stimson intimates that the Hoover administration will not send a minister to the present Papal Court, as reëstablished by the Gasparri-Mussolini accords. The late spring intimation, made to the press, carried with it the reminder that the 1848 Congress was divided upon the advisability of opening the original ministry. However, Mr. Stimson declared that the Government probably would recognize the new Vatican State.

The first American minister to the Holy See journeyed Romeward against a heavy tide of opposition. There were many Americans, in office and out, who recalled John Adams and his sentiments. The latter’s counsels were underlined in a report made to an early American Congress and dated Braintree, August 4, 1779. The document, submitted upon the close of a European investigation, dealt with ‘the general state of affairs in Europe so far as they relate to the interests of the United States.’ In the findings of Mr. Adams, ‘the Court of Rome, attached to ancient customs, would be one of the last to acknowledge our independence, if we were to solicit for it. But Congress will probably never send a Minister to His Holiness who can do them no service, upon condition of receiving a Catholic legate or nuncio in return; or, in other words, an ecclesiastical tyrant which, it is to be hoped, the U. S. will be too wise ever to admit into their territories.’

No less a president than Abraham Lincoln helped to map the diplomatic road which led once from Washington to Rome. But he, indications are, merely redrew old lines and emphasized old boundaries. Acting through his Secretary of State, Mr. Seward, he wrote thus to Richard M. Blatchford, Esq., American Minister to the Holy See in 1862:—

SIR: This government has not now, it seldom has had, any special transaction, either commercial or political, to engage the attention of a minister at Rome. Indeed, until a very late period the United States were without any representation at that ancient and interesting capital. The first colonists in this country were chiefly Protestants, who had not merely recognized no ecclesiastical authority of the Pope, but were very jealous lest he might exert some ecclesiastical influence here which would be followed by an assumption of political power unfavorable to freedom and selfgovernment on this continent. It was not seen that the political power of the Catholic church was a purely foreign affair, constituting an important part of the political system of the European continent. The opening of our country as an asylum to men of all religions, as well as of all races, and an extension of the trade of the Union, in a short time brought with them large masses of the faithful members of that church of various births and derivation, and these masses are continually augmenting. Our country has not been slow to learn that while religion is with these masses, as it is with others, a matter of conscience, and while the spiritual authority of the head of their church is a cardinal article of their faith, which must be tolerated on the soundest principles of civil liberties, yet that this faith in no way necessarily interferes with the equal rights of the citizen, or affects unfavorably his loyalty to the Republic. It is believed that ever since the tide of emigration set in upon this continent the head of the Roman Church and States has freely recognized and favored the development of this principle of political freedom on the part of the Catholics in this country, while he has never lost an opportunity to express his satisfaction with the growth, prosperity and progress of the American people. It was under these circumstances that this Government, in 1848, wisely determined that while it maintained representatives in the capitals of every other civilized state, and even at the capitals of many semi-civilized states which reject the whole Christian religion, it was neither wise nor necessary to exclude Rome from the circle of our diplomatic intercourse. Thus far the new relation then established has proved pleasant and beneficient [sic].

Just now Rome is the seat of profound ecclesiastical and political anxieties, which, more or less, affect all the nations of Europe. The Holy Father claims immunity for the temporal power he exercises, as a right incident to an ecclesiastical authority which is generally respected by the European states.

On the other hand, some of those states, with large masses in other states, assert that this temporal power is without any religious sanction, is unnecessary and pernicious. I have stated the question merely for the purpose of enabling myself to give you the President’s [Lincoln’s] views of what will be your duty with regard to it. That duty is to forbear altogether from taking any part in the controversy. The reasons for this forbearance are three: First, that so far as spiritual or ecclesiastical matters enter into the question they are beyond your province, for you are a political representative only. Second, so far as it is a question affecting the Roman states it is a domestic one, and we are a foreign nation. Third, so far as it is a political question merely, it is at the same time purely a European one, and you are an American Minister, bound to avoid all entangling connexion with the politics of that continent.

This line of conduct will nevertheless allow you to express, and you are therefore instructed to express, to His Holiness the assurances of the best wishes of the Government, and of the people of the United States for His health and happiness, and for the safety and prosperity and happiness of the Roman people. And you will further assure him that the United States constantly preserves a lively remembrance of the many generous and liberal manifestations they have received of His is good will and friendship, and that he may confidently rely upon them for the practice of all the duties which grow out of the relations of the two countries as independent members of the family of nations.

You will find Rome a resort and temporary residence of intellectual persons from all parts of the world. Among them are many who, in various degrees, exercise an influence upon the opinions, and, perhaps in some cases, upon the policies of nations. It will be a pleasing duty for you at this moment, when our unhappy domestic conflict [Civil War] is a subject of universal discussion, to vindicate the justice, the wisdom and the moderation of the Government and loyal people of the United States against those who, from interest, prejudice, or passion, are directing their efforts to the overthrow of a Republic, which, we must continue to think, still holds in its keeping the best hopes of the human race.

I am, sir, your obedient servant, WILLIAM SEW ARD. RICHARD M. BLATCHFORD, ESQ.

In the initial days of diplomatic relations, when the papacy’s territory was both extensive and important, Washington had ‘commercial interests’ tying her to Rome. Later, during the Civil War, when a great part of Europe secretly espoused the cause of the South and when even the papacy became a Janus-like temple, looking in opposite directions, the Union had national life itself at slake. But the relationship was always one-sided; not once through the 1848-1867 diplomatic cycle — and never since — did the Government accept a duly accredited nuncio from the Holy See. Not that pontifical diplomacy, aided at times by hierarchical elements in Catholic America, has never tried to bring about mutual official contact.

As a friendly emissary of Pius IX, Monsignor Gaetano Bedini visited President Pierce at the White House during 1853, presumably for the sole purpose of paying his respects. The prelate was on a Vatican mission to South America, but there is sufficient reason for believing that he was thinking in terms of a nunciature at Washington with himself as nuncio. In fact the same Monsignor Bedini, some time afterward, asked Archbishop Hughes of New York to acquaint him with Washington’s attitude toward this proposed nunciature.

The Pope’s delegate met with considerable unpleasantness in the course of his private travel and public appearance in the United States. William L. Marcy, Secretary of State at the time, was forced to take cognizance of certain individual cases of bitterness and violence. Writing to Lewis Cass, Jr., American representative at the Papal Court, he apologized in diplomatic wise for such annoyances, ‘which have been discountenanced by the Government and very generally reprobated by our citizens.’ Mr. Cass was instructed to assure Cardinal Antonelli, the Vatican Secretary of State, of the ‘friendly reception given Bedini by the President and his regret that in moments of excitement some people should have forgotten what is due a distinguished functionary.’

As far back as 1830, James Fenimore Cooper detected currents at Rome having their source in the papacy’s desire for official representation in the United States. In Cooper’s Gleaningsin Europe, published during 1838, we read: ‘I have ascertained that strong hopes exist here of advancing the religion of this Government [Rome] in America. If this can be done, let it, for I am for giving all sects fair play; but as such expectations certainly exist, it may be well for those who think differently to know it. . . .

‘You will be surprised also to learn that there is less religious bigotry in Rome itself than in many of the distant provinces subject to her canonical sway. The Government being in the hands of ecclesiastics as a matter of course, no open irreligion is tolerated; but beyond this, and the great number of churches and of the ecclesiastics themselves, a stranger would scarcely suspect that he was living purely under an ecclesiastical Government. The Popes are not the men they once were . . . most of the abuses incident to excessive temporal influence are done away with, and as the motive for ambition ceases, better men have been raised to the papal chair.’

For nineteen years this single-track arrangement between the Papal State and the American Government continued. Throughout this period there was no interruption in the carriage of diplomacy. Then came the incident of ‘American Protestant worship at Rome’ and the severance of the official bond. In the wings of Secretary of State Stimson’s recent announcement is the shadowy ghost of this littleknown event. Although from 1848 to 1867 the United States had a duly accredited minister near the Papal Court, in June of 1926 there is no plan looking toward the selection of an American diplomatist for ‘the Vatican City.’ Is a precedent about to be broken? Or was the American ministry to the pre-1870 Holy See a ‘temporary expediency’ in the first place — something entirely foreign to the authentic American tradition? Is that second question squarely answered by the affaire diplomatique of 1867, when American Protestant services were ostracized from the Holy City? The worldwide Catholic influence of the Pope and the importance of the new Vatican State, as a wanted or unwanted member in the family of nations, make the whole story of the closing of the American ministry worthy of public record. The average American, whether Catholic or Protestant or Jew, is ignorant of this chapter in our national biography. On this account is appended the revealing correspondence passing between Secretary of State Seward and Rufus King, the last American minister in papal Rome: —

Mr. King to Mr. Seward
LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES AT ROME,
February 11. 1867
SIR: In the New York [semiweekly] Times, of January 25, received this day, I observe the following item of intelligence among the proceedings of Congress: —
Protestant church at Rome. — On motion of Mr. Dodge, the President was requested to communicate information in reference to the removal of the Protestant church meeting at the American Embassy in Rome.
Other papers of the same date contain statements to the effect that the American chapel had been removed, by direction of the papal authorities, outside the walls of Rome; and that the American minister, assenting to the arrangement, had hired a villa, where the services were henceforth to be held. I beg to say that there is no truth in either statement. The American Protestant church in Rome remains where it was located at the commencement of the season, and will not, I think, be interfered with, for the present, at any rate.
As the matter seems to have excited much interest in the United States, I will endeavor, by next mail, to prepare and transmit a full history of the case, for the information of the department and the satisfaction of the people.
I am, sir, with great respect, your obedient servant,
RUFUS KING
HON. WILLIAM H. SEWARD,
SECRETARY OF STATE,
WASHINGTON, D. C.

Mr. King to Mr. Seward
LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES AT ROME,
February 18, 1867
SIR: In the brief despatch which I had the honor to address to the Secretary of State, under date of February 11th, referring to the action taken by the House of Representatives on the rumored closing or removal of ‘the Protestant church meeting at the American Embassy in Rome,’ I contented myself with a simple denial of the alleged fact, reserving for a future communication a fuller history of the case. I now submit a detailed statement of the matter, for the information of the department and of the public.
In Wheaton’s Elements of International Law, sixth edition, Page 304, the existing rule as to freedom of religious worship is thus laid down: ‘A minister residing in a foreign country is entitled to the privilege of religious worship in his own private chapel, according to the peculiar forms of his national faith, although it may not be generally tolerated by the laws of the state where he resides.’ The laws of Rome do not tolerate any other form of public religious worship than such as conform to the teachings of the Roman Catholic church; but the right of any foreign minister at the Papal court to hold religious services under his own roof, and in accordance with the forms of his national or individual faith, has never been questioned or interfered with. Thus the Russian, the Prussian, the American, and other representatives of foreign powers in Rome, have always exercised and still enjoy unmolested the freedom of religious worship in the several chapels connected with their respective legations. These chapels, of course, are open to all compatriots of the different ministers desirous of joining in their religious services.
So long as the number of Americans visiting Rome was comparatively limited, it was not difficult for the minister, in securing apartments for himself and family, to make suitable provision as well for a chapel. But of late years with the very great increase of travel, this has been no easy matter. It has not infrequently occurred that the congregation worshipping under the minister’s roof has reached the number of 250 or 300, and more than once has been much larger than could be accommodated in the apartments provided. These, of course, once set apart and suitably furnished for religious worship, could be used for no other purpose, and hence it has followed that the largest and best rooms in the minister’s residence were practically inaccessible to him except on Sundays and holy days.
In 1859, I think, while Mr. Stockton was minister resident here, Grace church in Rome, was regularly organized and placed under the jurisdiction of the presiding bishop of the American Episcopal church. It is under the auspices of this organization that religious worship has since been conducted, in connection with the American legation in Rome. In the spring of 1865, the Rev. Dr. T. B. Lyman, formerly of Pittsburg, Pennsylvania, was regularly elected by the wardens and vestry of Grace church as their rector. He accepted the charge, entered upon his trust in the fall of the same year, and has since continued to discharge its duties to the general acceptation of all who united in the services.
During the winter of 1865 and 1866 the residence of the American minister was in Salviati palace, and there the congregation of Grace church, as well as all American Protestants desirous of uniting with them, met regularly for purposes of religious worship. At times the number attending was in excess of the accommodation provided, comparatively ample though it was, and attracted a good deal of attention. The holding of Protestant worship under Duke Salviati’s roof, and the crowd thereby gathered, were not agreeable to the proprietor, and he declined to renew the lease of the minister’s apartments for another year, except upon the express condition that there should be no chapel connected therewith. Repeated efforts to obtain other quarters suitable for the minister’s residence, and free from the restriction attached to the Salviati palace, proved unavailing. It was under these circumstances that Dr. Lyman and the vestry of Grace church decided to hire an apartment themselves, separate from the legation, where they could hold religious services; confident in the belief that they would not be interfered with by the local authorities. Rooms were accordingly procured, fitted and furnished, in the Vicolo d’Alibert, a central and convenient locality, and there, since early in November, our American fellowcitizens have assembled for public worship, and still continue to assemble without let or hindrance.
The English who annually flock to Rome in large numbers have been accustomed these 40 years past to hold religious services, in accordance with the forms of their national church, in a large building just outside the Porta del Popolo. They have never been interfered with by the authorities. During the last five or six years the Scotch Presbyterians, perhaps 30 or 40 in number, have met for purposes of religious worship in a private house within the walls of Rome. A few months since a second Scotch Presbyterian congregation was formed, the line of separation between the two being the same that divides the Established from the Free Kirk of Scotland. This division, and the presence and participation of the Duke of Argyle, who chanced to be here, attracted the notice and led to the interference of the local authorities. It was intimated to the ministers of the two Scotch congregations that their services were contrary to law, and must be held outside the walls. They have transferred them, accordingly, to the building immediately opposite to the one so long occupied by the English Protestants. There, I presume, they will be allowed to meet and worship unquestioned and unmolested.
It was supposed by many that the closing of the American chapel, being apart from the residence of the minister, would necessarily follow that of the Scotch places of worship. To prevent, if possible, a step which I knew would create a great, deal of excitement at home, and subject our countrymen here to much annoyance and inconvenience, and at the same time, to give ourselves at least the color of right to assemble where we did for religious worship, I directed the arms of the American legation to be placed over the building in which the American chapel is located. This seems to have satisfied the requirements or scruples of the authorities, and thus far no one has interfered with us; nor do I believe that we shall be disturbed during the present season.
Thus stands the case at present; but it is not easy to see what future provision is made for the American church in Rome. The authorities may, possibly, hereafter insist upon the rule that it shall be held under the minister’s roof. On the other hand, the minister will always find increasing difficulty in securing apartments that will accommodate his family and himself, and at the same time include suitable provision for a chapel. Very good rooms can be obtained in the same building in which the English church is located, and I have the assurance of the cardinal secretary of state himself that no interference would be attempted with Americans choosing to assemble there for religious worship, even though separate and apart from the legation, but the locality is objected to on the ground that it is outside (though just outside) the walls. One solution, indeed, of the difficulty has been suggested, but I am by no means sanguine that it will find favor in the eyes of Congress. This is to purchase or hire for a term of years a building for legation purposes, including ample accommodation for a chapel. Under such an arrangement there would be no further question as to the right of American Protestants to assemble for public worship within the walls of Rome, while an official residence might be provided suitable to the position of the American representative at the Papal court, and not unworthy the character, dignity, and influence of the American government and people.
I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
RUFUS KING
HON. WILLIAM H. SEWARD,
SECRETARY OF STATE,
WASHINGTON, D. C.

Mr. King to Mr. Seward
LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES,
ROME, March 1, 1867
SIR: Recent mails from the United States have brought the rather unlooked for intelligence that the American mission at Rome was about to be closed by Congress; mainly, it would appear, in consequence of the rumored removal of the American chapel from the minister’s residence, within the walls of Rome, to a villa outside. In my despatch (No. 83) of February 18th, I transmitted for the information of the department a detailed account of the proceedings had here, in connection with this subject of Protestant worship in Rome; and I have nothing at present to add on that score. There are, however, some considerations which I feel it my duty to submit, and which seem to me conclusive against the policy or expedience of withdrawing the American representative at the Papal court in the present juncture of affairs. I feel the less hesitation in doing this, since I have asked to be transferred from Rome, and do not, therefore, speak from interested motives.
There probably has never been a time when the number of American travellers sojourning in Rome, and of American artists resident here, was so great as it is now, and it may be doubted whether there is a capital in Europe, with the single exception of Paris, where the proportion of Americans, resident and transient, especially during the fall and winter months, is so large as in this imperial city. The presence of an American minister is important to them, since there are numerous occasions and various ways in which he can be of very great service.
I am not, I think, mistaken in the belief that the Papal court is more than ever disposed to cultivate friendly and intimate relations with the United States. I might, in proof of this, instance not only studied and unvarying courtesy and kindness which I myself have always met with, personally and officially, at the hands of the Papal authorities, but the treatment experienced by all of my countrymen who have chanced to visit Rome during the past few years. Perhaps a still more striking evidence of this friendly disposition is to be found in the action of the Papal authorities at the time of the arrest of John H. Surratt [a Papal Zouave soldier and alleged Lincoln conspirator]. It will be in the recollection of the honorable Secretary of State, that when, in obedience to his instructions of October 16th, 1860, I inquired of Cardinal Antonelli (November 2) whether upon proper indictment, or the usual preliminary proof, Surratt would be delivered up at the request of the State Department, the answer was promptly in the affirmative; and that without waiting for any formal demand on my part, as well as in the absence of an extradition treaty between the governments for the surrender of the fugitives from justice, orders were given for the immediate arrest of Surratt, and his being placed in close confinement. This was done with the single purpose of showing the ready disposition of the Papal authorities to comply with the anticipated request of the American government. At the very same time the Italian government, applied to by our minister at Florence, the honorable George P. Marsh, declined to give any assurance for the surrender of Surratt should he be arrested within their jurisdiction, except upon conditions, which, as Mr. Marsh wrote to me, he greatly doubted whether our government would accept. The Papal government, on the contrary, attached no conditions whatsoever to their promised surrender of the fugitive upon my expected demand. The sudden withdrawal of our representative now, when, as many believe, the hours of the Papal government are numbered, seems scarcely a generous return for this friendly conduct on their part towards the American government and people.
The present aspect of European affairs is especially threatening. In the east the old quarrel between the crescent and the cross has recently revived, and is daily gaining larger proportions. France, while proclaiming peace, is calling under her eagle a million and a half of men. The King of Prussia, in the speech just delivered to his new Parliament, assumes the character, though not yet wearing the title, of Emperor of Germany. Austria, by fresh concessions to Hungary, is preparing as in the days of Maria Theresa, to rally that gallant people to the defence of her territory and throne. Italy is in a ferment and the revolution threatens Rome. It is hardly possible that six months should elapse without a violent, perhaps, a general convulsion. Is this the time to withdraw from Rome the American minister? Is it magnanimous in us to abandon the sovereign Pontiff in this hour of his waning fortunes? Shall we be the first among civilized and Christian nations to strike this blow at the Holy See? Are we to leave hundreds of our fellow citizens to the possible chance of encountering the revolution face to face, and without a representative to vindicate their rights and protect their interests, and it may be their property and persons?
It has been intimated in some quarters that the closing of the American legation here, though ostensibly caused by the rumored suppression of Protestant worship in Rome, was really designed as an indirect recognition of the right and title of Victor Emanuel to the whole of Italy. But I am un-willing to believe that Congress would attempt to accomplish by indirection what it hesitates to do directly. The United States has no need to resort to subterfuge. If the time has come for formally recognizing the Kingdom of Italy, as one and indivisible, with Victor Emanuel for its sovereign and Rome for its capital and centre, there can be no necessity of founding upon a false pretext an act which we have the right, if we deem it politic and proper, to perform openly and in the eyes of all the world. If we are to withdraw our recognition of the temporal power of the Pope and to recall the American representative at the Papal court, at the moment when it stands most in need of our friendly sympathy, I trust, as indeed I do not doubt, that it will be done upon grounds and in a manner that will reflect no discredit upon our own country and leave no just cause of complaint to the governments of Europe.
I am reminded by the date of this despatch that the term of the present Congress will expire within four days. Long, therefore, before it can reach Washington, the question as to the suppression or continuance of the Roman mission will have been definitely settled. It is not, therefore, with any expectation of influencing the result that I have ventured to submit the foregoing considerations, but solely to place on record some of the reasons why in my humble judgment this is not the time for recalling the American representative from the Papal court, and withdrawing to that extent our recognition of the Holy Father’s temporal authority.
I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
RUFUS KING HON. WILLIAM H. SEWARD, SECRETARY OF STATE, WASHINGTON, D. C. Mr. King to Mr. Seward
LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, ROME, March 20, 1867
SIR: In my despatch No. 83, of February 18th, I mentioned the circumstances under which the Scotch Presbyterians had been requested to close their places of worship within the walls of Rome, and transfer their religious services to a designated locality outside.
I learned, two or three days since, that Mr. Oldo Russell, diplomatic agent of the British government at the Papal court, who had reported the case to the authorities at home, had in reply received instructions to thank the Papal government for not having entirely deprived the Scotch Presbyterians of the right to meet for purposes of religious worship, and that it still permitted them so to assemble in a building adjacent to the one occupied for the past forty years by the English Protestants. The British government appeared to think that the Scotch, by knowingly violating the Roman law on the subject, had justly incurred the penalty prescribed, and that the Papal authorities in the course which they pursued had acted with commendable forbearance. Mr. Russell duly communicated to Cardinal Antonelli these thanks of the British government, and inferred from what transpired in the course of the subsequent conversation that his Eminence expected that the American Protestants also, if continuing to hold their religious services apart from the residence of the minister, would make use of the building already appropriated for English Protestant worship, in the immediate vicinity of the Porta del Popolo. For the present, nevertheless, the American chapel is in the Vicolo d’Alibert, and no change seems likely to be made during the current season.
I have the honor to be, with great respect, your obedient servant,
RUFUS KING
HON. WILLIAM H. SEWARD,
SECRETARY OF STATE,
WASHINGTON, D. C.

Mr. King to Mr. Seward
LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES,
ROME, May 7, 1867
SIR: Several weeks have elapsed since the receipt of despatch No. 55 from the State Department, apprising me that Congress had declined to make any further appropriation for the support of the American legation at Rome, from and after the close of the present fiscal year.
In the daily expectation that I would receive instructions as to the course to be pursued under the circumstances, I have refrained from calling on Cardinal Antonelli, for I was somewhat at a loss how to explain to his Eminence the sudden and unlooked-for withdrawal of the American minister from the Papal court; or on what terms to take my leave of the Holy Father himself and his accomplished secretary of state. I am still without the desired instructions, and earnestly request that if not already despatched, they may be transmitted to me at the earliest convenient opportunity.
The intelligence of the closing of the American mission has of course become public, and has elicited very strong expressions of regret from the American artists resident in Rome and transient American visitors here, as well as from my colleagues of the diplomatic corps and various functionaries of the Papal court. I am given to understand that the Pope himself feels hurt by this hasty and apparently groundless action of Congress, and thinks it an unkind and ungenerous return for the good will he has always manifested towards the American government and people.
On Friday last, Mr. J. C. Hooker, acting secretary of legation, having occasion to call on Monsignor Pacca, at the Vatican, on some matters of business, availed himself of the opportunity to pay his respects to Cardinal Antonelli. His Eminence at once introduced the subject of American Protestant worship in Rome. The season, he remarked, was nearly over, and the time at hand for closing the American chapel. Should it be reopened in the autumn, it could only be under the roof of the American minister or else in the building assigned many years ago for Protestant worship, immediately outside the Porta del Popolo. The Scotch, the Cardinal added, had been holding their religious services in a building opposite the one just mentioned, but complaints had been made in regard to it, and he should inform Mr. Oldo Russell that the Scotch must remove to the building occupied by the other Protestants. Baron Arnim, the Prussian minister, the Cardinal said, had applied to him to know if other religious services than their own would be permitted in the chapel connected with the Prussian legation, and the reply was that they might hold as many and what services they pleased; the Papal government did not enter into that question; it was enough for them to know that the services were under Prussian protection. In other words, the rule laid down and intended to be enforced by the Papal government in regard to Protestant worship in Rome is briefly this: that no questions are asked and no interference attempted as to such worship, provided that it be celebrated under the roof of a minister duly accredited to the Papal court. If there be no minister or no chapel connected with the mission, the American Protestants desirous of holding religious services according to the forms prescribed by their own church must do so in the building heretofore set apart for Protestant worship, outside the gates of Rome. This building, it seems proper to add, has been thus occupied by the English since 1823; adjoins the Porta del Popolo, and faces the entrance to the Villa Borghese; is large, convenient, easy of access, and can accommodate a numerous congregation, and is within five or ten minutes’ walk of the principal hotels, lodging houses, and quarters of the city most frequented by American visitors. I have given the substance of the Cardinal’s conversation, that there might be no misunderstanding as to the views of the Papal government relative to the toleration of Protestant worship within their jurisdiction. The rule is simple and obvious. It results therefrom that it is not his Holiness the Pope, but the American Congress who by closing the mission here, have driven American Protestant worship outside the gates of Rome. So long as the United States had a representative at the Papal court, and a chapel connected with the United States legation, no interference whatever was thought of or attempted with American Protestant worship in this Catholic city. It owes its suppression in Rome to the suppression of the American legation, to Congress and not to the Pope. It is this fact which renders it all the more difficult for me to announce to his Holiness that the United States withdraws its representative at the Papal court and breaks off all diplomatic intercourse with the Papal government on the alleged but erroneous grounds that the Pope refuses to permit Protestant worship within the walls of Rome.
I have the honor to be, with the greatest respect, your obedient servant,
RUFUS KING
HON. WILLIAM H. SEWARD,
SECRETARY OF STATE,
WASHINGTON, D. C.

Mr. Seward to Mr. King
DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
WASHINGTON, March 11, 1867
SIR: I have to inform you that in the ’act making appropriations for the consular and diplomatic expenses of the government, for the year, ending 30th June, 1868, and for other purposes,’ approved February 28th, 1867, it is provided that ‘no money hereby or otherwise appropriated shall be paid for the support of an American legation at Rome, and from and after the thirtieth day of June, eighteen hundred and sixty-seven.’
I am, sir, your obedient servant,
WILLIAM H. SEWARD
RUFUS KING, ESQ., etc., etc., etc.

Unrepresented near the crumbling court of the Pope, Washington watched, during the 1867-1870 interim, the last stage of the fall of the Holy Roman Empire. The magic whirligig of time has again changed the Chair of Peter into a throne. Although the stalwart shoulders of Mussolini frequently support this throne, the same Washington announces that no American minister will diplomatically gild it. Using Secretary of State Stimson as his mouthpiece, President Herbert Hoover simply says the American ministry remains closed.