“No system,” he replied with vivacity: “but I have made it evident, that neither happiness nor wealth can be enduring to a nation, if it do not rest upon order and a moral basis; if the intelligence, the will and morals of a people are not of an elevated character, so as to give a safe guidance to the material development, as well as the chief direction to life. My doctrine is therefore for all people, and for all forms of government, even for the republican,—only not for the red republican, because that, indeed, has no moral law.”
I expressed my satisfaction in his views, and asked by what means he conceived that so high a moral stand-point might be attained to with the people.
He energetically avowed himself to be an advocate of modern progression, of free trade, free communication, railways, &c.
“And freedom of the press?” I inquired.
“To a certain degree,” he replied. “There must be censorship, but this ought to be rational, mild, paternal.”
“And a free constitution?” I asked.
But to this question he either would not listen or not reply, and instead, he returned to his great work and its great new idea, of the moral foundation being the chief means of a nation's temporal well-being.
I know not when I have seen a man so naïvely captivated by himself. But under a form of government so despotic as that of Naples, it is, nevertheless, an excellent thing when a minister writes two such important portfolios, has good desires, and, to a certain degree, liberal tendencies. At the same time, these cannot
