[29] _Catholic Encyclopedia_, Volume XII, p. 491. The rôle of the Italians in this controversy is of considerable interest. The desire of the Italian Government to assert its right to protect its own citizens abroad was a manifestation of the Italian nationalism which brought about the establishment of the Kingdom; at the same time it was an expression of that anti-Clerical tendency which characterized Italian politics from the days of Cavour to the outbreak of the Great War. Undoubtedly, also, there was an economic side to the question. It will be recalled that Italian trade with the Ottoman Empire grew more rapidly than that of any other power after the opening of the twentieth century. (_Supra_, pp. 105–106.) This growth was due, in no small degree, to the earlier rise of Italian missionary activity in Turkey. This growth of missions and schools, as well as of commercial establishments, was irritating to patriotic Frenchmen. _Cf._ two articles by René Pinon, “Les écoles d’Orient,” in _Questions diplomatiques et coloniales_, Volume 24 (1907), pp. 415–435, 487–517. Italian missionaries, charged M. Pinon, were encouraged in every way to ignore the French protectorate, appealing only to Italian diplomatic and consular representatives. “Official Italy, Catholic and papal Italy, free-mason Italy and clerical Italy, all are working together in a common great patriotic effort for the spread of the Italian language and the rise of the national power” (p. 500). Annoying as this is, says M. Pinon, it should be “a singular lesson for certain Frenchmen!” That there was no love lost on the Italian side of the controversy may be gathered from an analysis of the Italian press comments which appeared in _Questions diplomatiques et coloniales_, Volume 37 (1914), p. 495. [30] Brucker, _loc. cit._, p. 491. Inasmuch as the protectorate of Catholic missions involved a considerable responsibility for France, one may ask why the French Government should have been so solicitous that no other nation be allowed to share the burden. The answer is suggested by the _Catholic Encyclopedia_, which states that the system of religious protectorates is almost invariably subject to the abuse that “the protectors will seek payment for their services by trammeling the spiritual direction of the mission or by demanding political services in return.” Volume XII, p. 492. [31] _Supra_, pp. 134–135. [32] _Revue des deux mondes_, Volume 149 (1898), p. 39. The “pro-German party” was said to consist of Cardinals Ledochowski, Hohenlohe, Galimberti, and Kapp. _Ibid._, pp. 11–12; Reinsch, _op. cit._, p. 269. [33] _Revue des deux mondes_, Volume 149 (1898), pp. 36–40. On this whole subject see, also, C. Lagier, _Byzance et Stamboul: nos droits françaises et nos missions en Orient_ (Paris, 1905); Hilaire Capuchin, _La France Catholique en Orient durant les trois-derniers siècles_ (Paris, 1902); A. Schopoff, _Les Réformes et la Protection des Chrétiens en Turquie_ (Paris, 1904).