A Re-Examination of Italian Unification (From Materials in the Archives of the United States)

Citation preview

r

n

FORDHAM UNIVERSITY GRADUATE SCHOOL

June

.19.42.

This dissertation prepared under my direction by

Rev« J o s eph T» D u r k in , S»J«

entitled

R e - e x a o iin a t io n : o f .. . I t a l i a n . U n i f i o i l i m ..... (P rom m a t e r ia ls i n th e A r c h iv e s o f th e

^Jni'bed Stetes)

has been accepted in partial fu lfilm e n t o f the requirements fo r the

Degree o f

D o c to r o f f h ilo s o p h y



L

(Faculty Admseqp

J

A RE -EXAMIN ATION of ITALIAN UNIFICATION (From materials in the Archives of the United States)

BY JOSEPH T. DURKIN, S. J. A.B*, Boston College, !28*

DISSERTATION SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN THE DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY AT FORDHAM UNIVERSITY

NEW YORK 1942

ProQuest Number: 10992522

All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is d e p e n d e n t upon the quality of the copy subm itted. In the unlikely e v e n t that the a u th o r did not send a c o m p le te m anuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if m aterial had to be rem oved, a n o te will indicate the deletion.

uest ProQuest 10992522 Published by ProQuest LLC (2018). C opyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States C o d e M icroform Edition © ProQuest LLC. ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 4 8 1 0 6 - 1346

iii

r

i TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter

Page

PREFACE.
t.

. Lui^i Parini repeats the same view, and calls the

!

Habshurg hegemony over the peninsula a ^foreign tyranny and

2 the first negation of God.11

After 1848, according to these

authors, the North Italians re-submitted themselves to the yoke, not with cheers but with groans of resignation. While stilesr view is to be

3

accepted with some caution,

yet it is not to be completely discounted.

He was not

actually present in Lombardy, and this fact undoubtedly weakens the force of his testimony; but surely at Vienna he had opportunities for learning the true facts, and to hold that he simply swallowed Austrian interpretations of events is to impeach gratuitously his integrity as an obser­ ver. A commentary on Austrian rule in Italy in the late Tfifties is given in the despatches of H. R. Jackson,

Ameri­

can minister at Vienna from December 1854 to June 1858.

It

is his view that that rule !,has not been the curse which some represent it,11 and he fears that the withdrawal of Habsburg control from Italy would be followed by political disorganization in the peninsula.^

As an evidence of the

ItaliansT loyalty to the Imperial regime, he marks the suc­ cessful visit of the Emperor to his Italian provinces in

2. 3.

Tivaroni, L»Italia durante il dominio Austriaco, Vol. I, pp. 3257 402, 382-386, 512. Parini, La Diplomazia e la quistione italiana, p. 12. Cf. above references to TTvaronl, L fItalia durante... and to Parini, La Diplomazia... Austria, Vol. IV, Jackson, No. 79, July 16, 1856.

56

1

1855.

1

!

And the American minister suggests a reason for

this feeling on the part of the Italians,

After remarking

that the condition of the laboring classes in the Empire

as a whole would bear a favorable comparison with that of the same classes in other countries, he turns his attention more particularly to Italy.

He declares that American

travelers who have come from more southern into Austrian

Italy, have been struck by evidences of the economic well p being of the working classes in the latter section.'0 In a passage which shows no evidence of excluding Italy from its scope, he reports that the people of the Empire are l»7 ”comparatively contented. h

There mony.

is, admittedly, some vagueness to this testi**

Jackson has the disturbing habit of shifting his

viewpoint from the general to the local, sometimes treat­ ing of the Empire as a whole and at other times referring to its specific parts.

But some, at least, of the above

statements certainly refer to Austrian Italy. A valuable hint as to the attitude of the Italians towards Austria is found in a comment of the American minister Rowan, writing from Naples.

Although he is refer­

ring to the situation as it existed in 1849i, his observa** tion applies to the period of the rfifties as well. T.

2. L,

Austria, Vol. IV, Jackson, No. 87., Feb. 5. 1857. Note that this is written two years after the event* Ibid. Austria, Vol. IV, Jackson, No. 79, July 16, 1856. J

57 rWherever, he says, a republic has been established, there n have been acts of violence and crime; and, •however repug­ nant to our ideas of freedom the march of Austrian troops into Italy may be, the friends of good order see no other 1 means of being protected.” In other words, it is possi­ ble that the Italians, although not over-enthusiastic towards Austrian rule, realized that it was the best guar­ antee of their peace and security.

The criticism of Austrian rule in the peninsula is continued by John M; Daniel, American minister at Turin from 1853 until 1861. In this particular testimony, it must be admitted from the outset, there is a peculiar contradiction.

In

1856 Daniel appears to be satisfied with Austria’s treat­ ment of her Italian subjects.

He £can see no reason why

the present arrangement of the peninsula cannot continue, except that everybody says it cannot.”^ Three years later, the American minister makes his meaning still clearer.

His despatch of January 11, 1859,

is an explicit denial of any reasonable grounds for revolt against the rule of Francis Joseph in Italy; and he pays Naples, Vol. II,Rowan, No. 8, Mar. 5. 1849. ' Sardinia, Vol. VI, Daniel, unnumbered, April 20, 1856. (Henceforth unnumbered despatches will be designated by the abbreviation ”n.n.” )

L

J

58

r

”i a surprising tribute to the liberal reforms of Austria in her Italian dominions.

H© scouts the claim of the Piedmon­

tese that they are acting on behalf of a general opposi­ tion to foreign rule in Italy.

He is equally out of sym**

pathy with the French design of “aiding** the oppressed people of Lombardy.

There is, thinks Daniel, no more

reason for war against Austria at this time than there has been at any other period. for a thousand years.

Foreigners have possessed Italy

Lombardy is not more oppressed now

than it was six years, or four years ago.

Indeed it has

now much less cause to complain than it ever had before, inasmuch as during the past year the Austrian rule there has been very much relaxed.

The Archduke and the Austrian

Government have both made every effort to conciliate the Italian people, and the Emperor has been for some time promising general reforms.

The real reason for the anti-

Austrian agitation is the double fact that France has a large army unemployed, and that Piedmont is always ready for war with Austria on any pretext, on account of gnawing ambition and rankling recollections of past disgrace. This is DanielTs view at the beginning of 1859.

In

June of the same year, after the opening of the FrancoAustrian war, he is apparently of the same mind.

Judging

by the laws of nations, he thinks it difficult to justify Sardinia, Vol. VI, Daniel, n.n., Jan. 11. 1859. L

J

59 r

Prance and Sardinia.

At the opening of this year Austria

n

was standing on her own unquestioned ground, her conduct in perfect accord with her treaties, governing her people 1 by their own laws. Then, in the very same despatch, he performs a volte face which makes us wonder what his true sentiments really were.

H© castigates, in the strongest terms, what

he terms the despotism of Austrian rule, and expresses his pleasure at witnessing the attack on the Emperorfs hegemony in Italy.

2

Obviously, it is difficult to reconcile these con­ flicting statements, and the effort shall not be made here.

1. 2.

L

Sardinia, Vol. VI, Daniel, n.n., June 28, 1859. The key passage of this despatch, which is a good ex­ ample of Daniel’s pungent style, is worth repeating in full: ^But it is impossible not to witness with pleasure the punishment of that bad power and the de­ feat of the detestable system that has so long rend­ ered wretched many millions of men. It is necessary to live near to Austria some time to know how perfect­ ly founded in truth are all the charges which history has brought against her; to witness the cynical reli­ ance on pure force and fraud which her politicians regard as the sole motors of the world, her settled determination to oppose anything .like advancement of freedom... and... her presumptuous arrogance and per­ fect confidence in her strength to defy the hatred and to withstand the just indignation of all mankind. Her vast military organization is full of this spirit; the cruelty and brutality of her soldiery is equalled only by the cold repellent pride and illbred swagger of their officers** (Sardinia, Vol. VI, Dan., n.n., Jah* 11, 1859.)

J

60

r

i Perhaps the best commentary on Daniel1s real sentiments is found in one of his later despatches, in the Fall of I860* He says that Sardinia is alarmed for the safety of the unification movement, since Francis Joseph is making lib­ eral concessions to his subjects*

All the provinces of

the Empire have been granted a constitution, and organized on the basis of autonomy*

In all their calculations rela­

tive to their future struggle against Austria, the Sardi­ nian politicians have taken it for granted that the Emperor would refuse all: concessions to his people, or that he would grant to them so few concessions that these wotild serve to render the national discontent more acute*

But

the latest measures of Francis Joseph, in Daniel’s opinion, seem to be sufficiently large to satisfy the mass of the Emperor’s subjects.

The provinces of the Empire, including

Lombardy (though not Venetia), do not wish separation from Austria*"*' It is to be noted that this is one of Daniel’s last judgments on the subject, and it is undoubtedly a return to his earlier favorable view of Austria in Italy*

Ordi­

narily, the later Judgments of an observer are to be preferred, in point of reliability, to his earlier ones, unless there is evidence that new circumstances have arisen which impeach the value of the later judgment.

In

Daniel’s case there is no Indication of such invalidating L l.

Italy, Vol. VII, Daniel, No* 174, Oct* 23, 1860.

j

61 ~t

r circumstances, and we are inclined to accept his opinion

of October 1860 as- that which best represents his feelings*

“What, then, must be our conclusion in regard to the character, of Austrian rule in Italy? It would

be rash to hold that that rule should have

continued, and .that the Italians .should not have freed themselves from the foreigner. here in favor of Austria:

One point only is claimed

her hegemony over the peninsula

was not an unmitigated despotism, and it’was not as con­ trary to the interests and happiness and desires'of the Italians as it has usually been represented.

Some of the

American ministers, as we have seen, have even claimed that the continued presence of Austria in Italy was neces­ sary for the security and prosperity of the people.

The

present writer would hesitate to go that far, but ii is extremely interesting to know that the American witnesses did so.

j

62

NOTE TO CHAPTER TWO The character of Austrian rule generally, with no specific reference to Austrian Italy, is described in an extended series of comments by Minister Jackson, and in a few remarks from Minis­ ter Webb, While it would be poor logic to predicate of Imperial rule in Italy all the virtues which mayhap could be found in Imperial rule elsewhere, yet a knowledge of the character of that rule through­ out the Empire throws light on another interesting question, which might be framed thus: ':@an there exist a high degree of personal liberty, prosper­ ity, and contentment under a form of government technically absolutist, a s w a s the Austrian govern­ ment in the period 1850-1860? The question, although it has no direct bear­ ing on the precise topic of this chapter, is how­ ever a fiat challenge to a claim which is being frequently combatted in these pages -- the claim that freedom, prosperity, and contentment can be found only under a 'liberal constitutional rule. The question will therefore be answered, on the testimony of the American ministers.

J. Watson Webb, succeeding Stiles at Vienna in 1850, contrasts conditions in the Empire before and after the revolution of 1848. That uprising had forced the Emperor to grant some concessions, which, while falling far short of constitutional­ ism, had nevertheless given some extension of .lib­ erty to the Austrians and Hungarians. But even this very modified form of liberalism, says Webb, is in most instances unacceptable to the masses, who 11greatly prefer their former system of serfdom to that Liberty which they are alike unfitted to exercise or to enjoy11 (Austria, Vol. Ill, Webb, No. 2, Mar. 9, 1850.) In the face of the charges made by the liber­ als against Austrian despotism, we are puzzled to hear Webb insisting that the people of the Empire in 1848 ,rreally did not desire a change,* and, having had liberty (in a modified dose) and the (decidedly modified) right of suffrage extended to them, refused to accept the one or to exercise the other (ibid.) Webb then proceeds to give some reasons for this attitude of the people. Wndbr the pre-1848 system, he explains, the peasant in Austria proper L

j

63

paid, usually to the lord of the manor a tithe of the produce of the soil as a substitute for his rent, the fee of the land being in consequence vested in the peasant. The new method abolished the tithe, ostensibly as a relief to the people, and the government promised to make good one third of it to the noble. What has happened? The government has repudiated this promise and the noble is in many cases ruined. On the other hand it is found that the peasant himself is not bene­ fited. Under the old regime he received from the lord of the manor, in consideration of the payment of tithe, the service$,free of cost, of the mano­ rial courts and police. But now, in the hands of the government, these protective services will cost the people quite as much as the tithe former­ ly paid to the lord. trTo stinx up,** concludes Webb, 11the burdens of the p e o p le have increased fourfold, and they have in exchange a liberty they did not desire and cannot appreciate** (Austria, Vol. Ill, Webb, No. 2, Mar. 9, 1850.) All this may seem to be, as indeed it is, adverse criticism of the Austrian government. For us, however, the significant point is this: Webb comes perilously near to endorsing the Imperial agrarian system as it existed prior to 1848. He believes that the masses of the people had more real freedom under that system, and he doubts their ability to exercise and their desire to possess the wider technical freedom which the revolution has forced the government to grant. Jackson, writing in 1858, believes that the masses in Hungary enjoy a reasonable amount of freedom, and that they are content to remain under Imperial rule (Ata&tria;- Vol# IV, Jackson, No. 115, Jan. 31, 1858.) It is, however, in a long despatch of February 1857 that he gives his most detailed judgment on Austrian rule at that period. First, he says, it may safely be premised that the moderate liberal reaction of the govern ment, consequent on the revolution of 1848, has been continuing with accelerated progress. This is observable, not simply in the acts of the govern­ ment, but in the sentiments and tendencies of the people, who are loyal and devoted to the Bffipire, and have not the slightest wish of separating them­ selves from it. This popular satisfaction is due largely to the new impetus given by the government

L

J

64 r

”1 to the material and commercial development of the country. The industrial and financial classes, in particular, have been won over by this progressive policy. The Austrian absolutism has linked itself so intimately with the private life and private con­ cerns of the individual that the latter has no de­ sire to throw off this protection. The government watches over the security and well being of the individual from the cradle to the grave. The na­ tional hospitals for the sick, the insane, and the otherwise indigent and helpless have been highly praised by American social workers. Austria, in the opinion of the American minister, is applying 11the principle of governing the individual well as the surest means of governing the mass.” He feels that none must needs recognize in the Aust­ rian Government the most perfect working of an absolutist system.” That this paternalism involves a loss of lib­ erty in the technical or political sense, Jackson does not deny. But he feels that the average European does not mind the sacrifice, provided he gets the security. The Austrians and Hungarians, at least, seem to be well satisfied with the bar­ gain (Austria, Vol. IV, Jackson, No. 87, Feb. 5, 1857.) This testimony of the two American ministers provokes the reflection that there may be several ways of securing liberty — real and effective liberty -- for the people, and that liberal con­ stitutionalism is not the only way. Constitution­ alism is undoubtedly a safeguard of liberty, and we would hesitate to forego it. Liberty without constitutionalism of some form does seem to be an insecure and impermanent blessing. But the fact remains -- if we can trust the testimony of Webb and Jackson — that the Habsburg modified patern­ alism was rendering the people of the Empire more effectively free and contented than — as we shall see in subsequent pages — the Sardinian liberal constitutionalism was rendering the people of the sub-Alpine State.

L

J

65

r

CHAPTER THREE

"*

Piedmont, 1840 - 1848 The new Kingdom of Italy would be created by the efforts of Piedmont, more than by any other single agent, and would naturally inherit to a marked-degree the poli­ tical characteristics of the latter State.

It is useful,

therefore, to ask the question, What kind of a political organism was this Piedmontese kingdom during the half cen­ tury preceding its practical metamorphosis into the Italian State?1 Further, the Italian revolution of 1848 was a kind of dress rehearsal for the more successful movement of 1859-1860, and displayed some of the innate weaknesses which were not entirely absent from the greater movement. The revolution of 1848 will therefore be studied with the aim of discovering what light it throws on the -revolution of 1859-1860.

1.

i

For Piedmont at this period vide: C. Spellanzon, Storia del Risorgimento Italiano, 4 vols., Milan, 1933. C. Vidal, Charles-Albert et le Risorgimento italien, Paris, 1927. G. Prato,~Fatti e dottrine alia vigilia del 1848 in piedmonte. L !Associazione a g r a r i a subalpina e Camillo di Gavour (Biblioteca di storia italiana recente, Vol. IX, Turin, 1921), pp. 133-484. For political ideas at this time: G. Ferrari, I partiti politici italiani dal 1789 al 1848, new ed., Citta de Castello, 1921.

j

66

First, as to. Piedmont:

What was the general spirit

m

of the State? From the year of Charles Albert’s succession to the throne in XS231 until approximately 1846, the House of Savoy had been a sound and conservative monarchy working harmoniously with the Church,

The king was a devout

Catholic, respected though perhaps not warmly loved by his people.

The government Was of a moderately progres­

sive character, the most stable of all the regimes in the peninsula, The population was noted for its piety, Turin being celebrated as the ^City of the Blessed Sacr^yment,w table institutions flourished.

Chari­

On March 27, 1841, the

king gave evidence of his devotion to the Church by con­ cluding with Gregory XVI a concordat with regard to cleri­ cal immunities. As late as mid-October of 1847, Charles Albert had remained more conservative than the Pope, and was being pressed by the Piedmontese liberals for constitutional reforms in imitation of Pius IX.

It must be .remembered

that it was the latter who, from June 1846 until March 1848 was t&e real head of the Italian liberal movement. By a series of reforms beginning with the political

L

j

67 r amnesty of July 16, 1846, and culminating in the grant o f ”1 a Consulta (consultative council) for his State on October 14, 1847, the Pontiff had become the inspiring center around whom rallied all the parties who sought to liberate and to constitutionalize the peninsula. After the Pope’s example the Italian states, from 1847 onward, were being sown with civic guards, a. free press, and consultative assemblies, and were moving ever nearer to outright constitutionalism.

In October of 1847

Balbo complained to Charles Albert that Piedmont was being outdistanced by the Papal state and by Tuscany in the matter of reforms. What was the reason for this hesitancy on the part of the king of Piedmont?

Although longing for the libera­

tion and unification of Italy, he realized that constitu­ tionalism meant war with Austria, a trial for which the Italian states were not yet ready.

Furthermore, the in­

nate conservatism of Charles Albert made him fearful of the radical forces which, even before the Fall of 1848, held so much control of the national movement.

The He

Tentenna' (if he deserves that a-TOe:lIabionQ wanted the uni­ fication of Italy, and he knew that a necessary condition of this was the liberalizing of each Italian state.

But

it cannot be too strongly emphasized that there was almost as much difference between the really radical revolution and Charles Albert as between the radical revolution and L 1*

Wavering king*11

J

68

r

Pius; and Charles Albert feared the radical movement almost as much as did the Pope.

"i

The all-important point

where he agreed with the radicals and differed from the POpe was his belief that the Austrians must be driven out of Italy by war.

And it was this belief which finally was

to place the king, in March of 1848, at the head of the unification movement. The difficulties of Charles Albert were increased by the entry of the Austrian garrison into Ferrara in July 1847, leading to a clash between the Austrians and the inhabitants of the Romagna.

The Piedmontese liberals,

excited by the event, increased their demands for reforms. Finally, on October 30, 1847, the king took his first im­ portant step in that direction.

He announced a list of

reforms relating to the courts, the police, the press, and the communal and provincial councils. at that time to concede a Consuita —

But he refused

the Pope had granted

one to his state two weeks previously —

and still less a

constitution, declaring a few months later that ttit is just because I desire the liberation of Italy that I shall 1 not grant a constitution. n These reforms of 1847 were real and far-reaching, and were received with joy and gratitude by the Piedmontese.

1.

L

He made the remark to the Marchese d»Azeglio in Febru­ ary, 1848. Vide G.F.-H. and J. Berkeley, Italy in the Making, Jan. 1st, 1848 to Nov. 16th, 1848, pp. 35^377“ J

69 r

-i For twenty-six years, ever since his accession, there had been a kind of harrier between the king and his people. Charles Albert had never completely won their confidence. His hesitancy in the matter of reforms had aroused suspi­ cion in the minds of many of his subjects.

But now he had

vindicated himself, had proved his liberalism, and the people hoped confidently for more concessions.

From the beginning of 1848 a new era opens for Pied­ mont, inasmuch as the internal development and foreign relations of the state become linked permanently with the unification movement.

This fact is brought out clearly

by a brief review of the important events of the first three months of that year. From the very first day of 1848 there had been in­ creased anti-Austrian feeling in Lombardy, as evidenced by the *No Smoking* campaign at Milan and the Luttl di Lombardia or outbreaks of January lst-3rd.

Then, on Janu­

ary 15, came the uprising in Sicily, a revolt which, be it remarked, had no relation to the unification movement, but was directed by the Sicilians against their Neapolitan overlord.

The Northern Italians, however, viewed the

rising as an anti-Austrian movement in sympathy with their own; and the Tuscans were so encouraged as to be able to force from their Grand Duke a constitution on February

L

j

70

The news of the fall of Douis Philippe, which reached Italy a week later, further fanned the revolutionary ex­ citement; and a vitally important step forward was taken on March 5th, when Charles Albert was finally forced to grant a constitution. Prom this date onward, events conspired with almost dizzying rapidity to two ends:

the transfer of the lead­

ership of the national movement from the Pope to Charles Albert, and the transformation of mere agitation and spo­ radic revolt into outright war against Austria.

On March

17th the news of the Vienna uprising reached Venice, and the latter city at once declared herself a republic under Manin.

The Pope, trying to stem the tide and to maintain

his control of the national movement, conceded a consti­ tution to his State and vainly sought to form a customs union which would aim at unification by a loose confedera­ tion of the Italian states and would repudiate war against Austria. But the Pope had lost control of the Risorgimento, Tl

L

ItHmight be noted in passing that the Grand Duke, as early as 1838, had made to his subjects constitu­ tional concessions which the American minister Throop had designated as expressing wvery liberal feelings towards individual rights11 (Naples, Vol. I, Throop, No. 1, Oct. 2, 1838.) This liberalism of the Tuscan ruler, continues Throop, was urging the kings of Naples and Piedmont to follow a like course. There is something d§©idedly piquant in this in spiratfona1 effect of the liberalism of the Austrian Grand Duke on the king of Piedmont I j

71

r

~i

for Italy was determined on war against the Empire, a pro­ gram which Pius, as head of an international Church comprising Austrians as well as Italians, could never count­ enance.

Charles Albert felt that the long-awaited oppor­

tunity had come, the moment when the Italian states, or a sufficient number of them, were strong enough to strike the blow at Austria and to take the first step towards the creation of a unified and liberal Italy.

On March 24

he mgrched to the aid of the Lombards and Venetians who ware already fighting against Radetzky. For the next two and a half months the king fought a relatively successful campaign in the field.

By early

June, therefore, he had attained a sufficiently strong position to undertake the actualization of his cherished plan of forming a North Italian Kingdom, as the first step in the unification of the peninsula.

By the end of

July Lombardy, Venetia, Parma, and Modena had voted to incorporate themselves with Piedmont.

It seemed that the

North Italian Kingdom had taken form. This Kingdom, according to the Piedmontese plan, was to become eventually part of a federation embracing the Papal State, Naples, and the other smaller states of Italy.

In thus recognizing the federative principle,

Charles Albert agreed with the Papal program and opposed the Mazzinian idea of a unitary, republic on radically demo­ cratic lines, including the whole of the peninsula. 1________ ;-------------------------------------_

But

-------

J

72 H

there were two vital points of difference between the Papal and Piedmontese plans.

In the first place, as al­

ready moted, the Pope and the King were in unalterable op­ position on the issue of war with Austria.

Secondly,

Charles Albert insisted that the Italian federation should recognize the incorporation of Lombardy, Venetia, Parma, and Modena in his own State —

a condition which the Papal

plan would never admit. The North Italian Kingdom lasted but five weeks, be­ ing dissolved by the armistice of August 9, 1848, after the defeat of Charles Albert at Custoza.

But it was a

portent of what was to come twelve years later; it held lessons for piedmont which were not forgotten; and it con­ tained elements which were reproduced in 1859-1860.

The

project of the North Italian Kingdom is therefore emi­ nently worth studying.

Nathaniel Niles, American minister at Turin during this period,'*’ had distinct misgivings in regard to the new creation of Charles Albert.

Niles was an American liberal

and an American nationalist, with the usual prepossessions of his party.

He expressed the hope that the time would

come when ^the Italian race will be emancipated from the

L 1.

He served from early 1848 to the end of 1850.

j

73

n 1

despotic and hated yoke of Vienna” ;

but the North Italian

Kingdom project did not meet with his full favor# On the day after the law for the annexation of Lombardy had been submitted to the Piedmontese Chamber, the American minister expressed his doubt that the wtask

of establishing the principles of a constitutional monarchy can be confided to a population Ji.e., the Lombard^ till now wholly untaught in the... practice of political 2 rights.” The constitution of the new kingdom is to be formulated by a constituent assembly, composed of delegates elected by universal suffrage throughout Lombardy-Venetia. There will be one representative for every 25,000 inhabitants, forty-five per cent of whom, Niles notes, can neither read nor write. In a later despatch he enlarges on his opinion of the incapacity of the Lombards and Venetians for consti­ tutional government.

The former people, he recalls, have

been subjected to foreign rule for more than four hundred years, and seem to have lost all civic virtues except that of an untiring and ever vivid hatred of the Austrian T.

2. 3. L

Sardinia, Vol. V, Niles, No. 50, Aug. 2l, 1850. It is to be noted that this despatch was written two years after the events of 1848, and is therefore not a thoroughly reliable index of Niles* feelings at the moment of 1848. There is no reason, however, to suppose that on this particular point his views changed during the Interval. Sardinia, Vol. V, Niles, No. 4, June 16, 1848. Ibid. J

74 r 1 despot.

"l The Lombard nobles are untaught in the science

and practice of civil government, and have grown up in hab­ its of idleness and luxury, with cherished sentiments of hostility to all authority. norant.

The peasants are poor and ig­

Niles concludes that it is questionable whether

a very great accession of such a people into the councils of the Piedmontese government can be admitted without dan­ ger.

The population of Venetia he thinks to be nstill

more depraved, effeminate, and less enlightened.w The American minister fears that the civil, military, and religious virtues of the Piedmontese will be lost by their fusion with what he terms the passionate unbridled ignorance and social corruption of the whole LombardoVenetian population.

This reason alone, he thinks, should

dispose the king to stop his progressive territorial acqui­ sitions at the line of the Mincio or at that of the Adige, until his new subjects shall have received their necessary education in the civic virtues. It is to be remarked that these strictures have a relevancy beyond the situation which was their immediate occasion.

What Niles says with regard to the North

Italian Kingdom of 1848 might be said with equal justice of the Italian Kingdom -- at least its northern portion -1* 2. 5. L

Sardinia,. Vol. V, Niles, No. 5, July 1848. Sardinia, Vol. V, Niles, No. 5, July 2. 1848. Ibid. J

75

r

n of 1860.

The same Lombards condemned by Niles in 1848

were part of the Italian constitutional state after 1860, and the Venetians enjoyed the same privilege after 1867. If these populations were unfit for constitutional govern­ ment at the earlier date, is it likely that they ?i/ere much more qualified ten years later?

We perceive here a charac­

teristic of the American minister7s testimony which will recur frequently; in criticising various factors in the pre-1860 political situation, he criticises also by impli­ cation some elements in the situation after the formation 1 of the complete Italian State. The same may be -said of another point which Niles makes against the North Italian Kingdom project. believes that it is

He

impracticable bn account of sectional

differences, and on account of the disinclination of the member states and provinces to relinquish their local interests and to subordinate themselves to a central Tl

L

For interpretation in opposition to Niles on this v point vide: Bianchi-Giovini, Pensieri sulla necessita d 7une pronta unione, Venice, 1848. For political thought at the period: N. Cortese, WI1 liberalismo toscano nei primi quarant7 anni del secolo XIX,M Rassenga nazionale, Ser. II, Vol. XXXIV (1921), pp. 48-64. A. Monti, 1 7idea federal!stica nel Risorglmento italiano, Bari, 1921. P. J. Proudhon, Du Principe Federatif, (Collection des Chefs-d7Oeuvre Meconnus, ed. Charles Brun), Paris, 1921, e.g. pp. 122, 147-152.

J

76 r

1

n

government.

While the fever in favor of a common fusion of all the Italian states north of the Appenines prevailed, and while uncertainty existed as to its accomplishment, the old municipal spirit of traditional rivalry and hatred was suffered to slumber*

But as soon as the reality of a per­

manent union presented itself as a fixed fact, Milan, Genoa, and even Turin evinced the most bitter jealousies*

The

Piedmontese, essentially monarchical in their principles, feared the democratic tendencies of the Milanese, and sus­ pected the latter of planning to supersede Charles Albert and transfer the capital of the new kingdom to Lombardy* Genoa was exasperated that Turin should interject special 1*

L

Thespecial value of this testimony of Niles does not lie in any novelty of viewpoint, for it is.generally admitted that the sectional differences did exist* But the liberal historians have been wont to minimize the importance of these differences as an obstacle to unification. Tivaroni, for instance, while admitting that Austria, by a more liberal administration, might have exploited the local jealousies in such wise as to have forestalled unification, insists however that uni­ fication was a "natural and necessary” consummation (L*Italia durante il dominio Austriaco, Vol. Ill, pp. 351-367.) If the Tocal jealousies were strong enough to be thus used by Austria to her own advantage, we might well doubt whether unification was natural and necessary. Niles' analysis is important because it stresses what to his mind was a radical incompatibility of affections between the bodies politic of the penin­ sula. For interpretations in the same vein as that of Tivaroni, vide: Orsi, L'Italia Moderna, pp. 165-167, 174; G. de Ruggiero, II PensTero Politico Meridionals, p. 296; G. Savarese, Le finanze napoletane e le finanze piemontese dal 1848 al 1860, Naples, 1862, p. 39.

j

77

r n Piedmontese interests and high monarchical principles into the project for an immediate union of the Lombards on their own more democratic plan, and in popular assemblies Genoa denounced the Piedmontese and declared her sympathy for Milan,

The latter city insinuated her determination to

call in the aid of republican France and, by uniting with Genoa, throw off the

connection with Piedmont altogether

and form a union on their own lines,^ Although the angry spirits which hovered about the beau ideal of Italian unification seemed to have passed away for the moment, and incorporation with Piedmont was voted (July 1848), Niles has serious doubts as to the per­ manence of the consolidation.^ A few weeks later his view is unchanged*

(It is sig­

nificant that this despatch was written on the very day of the acceptance by Charles Albert of venetia!s vote for an­ nexation to Piedmont.)

Venetia, says Niles, hesitated for

several months before 'surrendering her sovereignty to Charles Albert, and did so only after Austria hadoccupied all

of the province except the city of Venice.

To the

American minister it is apparent that ...there are still surviving germs of ancient local antipathies of sufficient influence to thwart the harmonious estab­ lishment of a common constitution for a people embracing so many large cities whose historical glories are traced but T. 2. L

Sardinia, Vol. .V, Niles, No. 5, July 2, 1848. Ibid. j

78

too often to more or less successful wars upon each other.3He still hopes that the North Italian Kingdom will en­ dure, as the great dangers to which the common interests and liberties of the whole country are exposed may urge the people to pool their forces even at the cost of some loss of independence*

But less than two weeks later --

one day before the Piedmontese surrender after Custoza -the American minister returns to his more pessimistic 3 view* It might be said, of course, that Niles is writing in 1848, and that the situation would change considerably by 1860.

The sectional differences so acute at the earlier

period would, under the influence of the national movement, be gradually erased and transmuted into a splendid and unanimous will for unification.

This indeed is the tradi­

tional interpretation of many historians, but it is not in 2. 3*

L

Sardinia", Vol.~V, Niles,' No. 6, July 27, 1848. Ibid. Sardinia, Vol. V, Niles, No. 8, Aug. 10, 1848. In this same despatch Niles makes another rather interesting remark. Charles Albert*s intentions, he says, have been clumsily misrepresented by some of his ministers, who have hinted that the king sought to unite the whole peninsula under his sceptre. Niles refers to this pos­ sibility as the ^preposterous idea of uniting all Italy into a single sovereignty and making Charles Albert its king.** We are tempted to wonder what the American minister would have said in 1860, when this very event transpired to the advantage of Charles Albert!s successor J

j

79 r without its weak points.

Deep-rooted antipathies and in­

compatibilities such as those here described do not oblit­ erate themselves in twelve years, and we cannot help doubt­ ing whether they did so in the case of Italy. Niles was a good prophet.

The Kingdom of Northern

Italy lasted, as we have seen, but a month and six days. Piedmont, defeated in the field, submitted to a six-weeks* armistice on August 9, and the bright dreams of March 1848 were shattered.

The bombards, and particularly the

Venetians, fought some rather ineffectual rear-guard actions, then returned to the arms of Austria, to remain there until 1860.

Charles Albert, now in bad odor with his

former allies, reverted perforce during the next eight months to the Papal and other proposals for a loose league of states, with the hope of eventually renewing the war. Two typical varieties of these latter proposals were the plans of the Abbe Rosmini and of Gioberti, both pro­ viding for a loose league — confederation —

something less than a strict

of all the Italian states, with a central

government at Rome.

The two plans were being considered

at Rome and at Turin during October, 1848, and had some prospects of success, although an obstacle existed in the form of the Piedmontese insistence on retaining (at least In theory and de jure) the annexations in the north.

There

'*-Wass also in both plans a dangerous ambiguity in regard to

L.

J

80 r "1 the presidency of the leggue. The Papal advocates naturally wished the Pope to enjoy this position, while Piedmont, though not rejecting this condition, nursed the arriere pensee of leadership of the league hy Charles Albert. Niles makes some observations concerning these plans. He condemns Montanelli's unitary republic project, on the grounds that it would set up a highly centralized govern­ ment at Home which would oblige the other states to forego the essentials of their sovereignty#

For us the value of

the criticism lies in the fact that the very same objec­ tion applies to a condition which was to exist later — the highly centralized administration established after 1870 by the fully unified Italian Kingdom. The American minister cannot believe that the pride of many ancient cities, provinces, and long-established nationalities will voluntarily lay down their individual importance before a central government at Home.

Can it be

imagined, he asks, that the people of Piedmont, the most ancient monarchy in Europe, would consent to abjure a gov­ ernment of their own, or see it shorn of its independent authority and accept the dictation of a central power which, from its geographical position, must necessarily be a total stranger to all the peculiar interests, prejudices#

j

and dangers of Piedmont?

1

^

This question has a relevancy far transcending the confederation plans of October, 1848*

It could he applied,

with equal justice, to the Italian political situation after 1870, and what is here said with regard to Piedmont could be said of the other states of Italy in reference to the Italian Kingdom as finally constituted.

Niles is

asserting in this despatch the principle that a highly centralized government, effacing the autonomy of the other Italian states, is not popular and not workable in the peninsula.

The criticism, applies as much to the later

monarchy of Victor Emmanuel as to the proposal of Montanelli in 1848.

In considering the 1848-1849 movement from a more general viewpoint, Niles makes some very penetrating obser­ vations » The unification crusade during that period, both in its radical and in its moderate phases, involved, both as a means and as a goal, the establishment of representative political regimes.

This was equally true of the movement

throughout the rfifties and fsixties.

The American minis­

ter has serious misgivings as to the suitability of this Sardinia, Vol. V, Niles, No. 12. Oct. 15. 1848. The~ defect here noted was not present in either the Rosminian or Giobertian plans, nor in the similar and later proposal of Rossi, all three of which were ex­ tremely careful to safeguard the autonomy of the mem­ ber states of the league.

82 r ideal for Italy.

n

Niles is convinced that the Italian character is so thoroughly imbued with intolerance and sentiments of hatred, private and political, as to forbid the establish­ ment of any form of government founded on mutual conces­ sions and partial surrender of rights and of interests for the common good.^

The all important point of this

testimony is that the defects noted would disqualify the Italians not merely for a republican form of government, but for any truly constitutional monarchical type of rule. This, indeed, is what the American minister seems to think* for, while admitting that the Sardinians have shown evi­ dences of ability to collaborate with their representative government, he. remark's-ithat the Sardinians are endowed with special qualities of character fitting them for the reception of liberal instit^tidfSig/ "and constitutional freedom may therefore work well there, and yet fail in 2 Tuscany, Rome,- and Naples . n

Niles did not content himself with condemning speci­ fic acts and methods of the revolution of 1848-1849.

In

a series of comments, he analyzes its fundamental spirit; and, in so doing, indicates faults which, in the opinion of the present writer, were found also in the more moder­ ate liberalism of Piedmont and of the later Italian 1^ L, 2*

Sardinia, Vol. V, Niles, No. 15. Dec. 24. 1848. Sardinia, Vol. V, Niles, No. 38, Dec. 22, 1848.

83

r Kingdom.

"*

On the very day of the formal incorporation of farma into the North Italian Kingdom, June 16, 1848, and ahout a week after the annexation of Lombardy, the American minis­ ter seeks to probe the deeper meaning of the unification movement. Liberalism, he fears, may defeat its own purpose by 1

going ahead too rapidly and too far.

Recent events in

Europe have exemplified the fact that any movements in the direction of liberty, beyond the point of practical wisdom,

inevitably lead to the re-establishment of monarchy in its o more arbitrary forms. Eight months later (he Is now referring solely to the radical republicans) he feels that the revolutionists will not limit themselves to reasonable and practicable reforms', but will push their principles too far. ble consequences will follow:

One of two possi­

Europe will either relapse

into anarchic barbarism or be reduced to a military des3 potism. This criticism was directed, as we have said above, against the radical movement of 1849; but can it not be said that the defect therein indicated by Niles was des­ tined to reappear in the later and more moderate stages of the Risorgimento? TI

In thus making the-wider application we

Prom the whole context of the despatch and from the time of its writing, it is clear that Niles -is referring to both the radical and moderate movements of the summer of 1848. Sardinia, Vol. V, Niles, No. 4, June 16, 1848. , Sardinia, Vol. V, Niles, n.n., Feb. 16, 1849.

84

place ourselves under the obligation of adducing proofs, which will be forthcoming; but the mere statement of the question is not useless. The sober truth that liberalism may defeat itself by its own precipitancy, would appear to have been recognized by the liberals themselves of Genoa, who, recoiling from the excesses attached to the popular manifestations made in the name of liberty, had rallied to the support of the former government and legally-established authorities. The recent riots in that city had been quelled by a coali­ tion made up of the Austrian troops and the forces of the moderate revolutionaries, commanded

by

the former republi­

can minister Paret®!^ K

It may be that the saner elements in Genoa had per-

•peived the truth which Niles would point out a few years later. of

the

He wrote, in 1850, in praising the moderate policy Sardinian

legislature:

It proceeded with measured and cautious steps in the way of reform, without any at­ tempts to throw off what centuries have proved to be good institutions. It seems to be sensible that the gravest danger popular liberty has to encounter is that of going too fast and too far in the way of Innovation and change. It seoms to compre­ hend the great political truth, that all solid structures in the way of government must be built up by slow degrees, and that every new advance toward improvement should receive the sanction of the quiet, sober, and unimpassioned judgment of an enlight­ ened and moral public mind.2

II

Sardinia, V o l . V, Niles, No. 15, Oct. 51, 1848. Sardinia, Vol. V, Niles, No. 47, Apr. 30, 1850.

85

r

~\

An impartial critic, from our present vantage point of time, might well ask himself, Was it not precisely this wgreat political truth** which the Italian Revolution, even in its later and moderate phases, was to ignore, most fatally?

To. ask the question Is, of course, not to answer

it; hut it will he one of the chief aims of this

study to

see whether or not the professed; moderates of the later movement were to a large extent captured hy the radicals, and won over to the radicalsf principles. There were other and more serious faults in 1848. The ardent young revolutionaries, as they stormed with gay abandon the battlements of tradition, tore down the great pillar on which alone the social system can rest in safety, viz., that sentiment of moral responsibility, growing out of a belief in God- and a future life, respect for the law and for the authority emanating from it, and a regard for the rights of property*1 The situation in the North in February 1849 was an illustration of the last point.

The republicans have tem­

porarily (until June of 1849) captured the unification movement, and are seeking to establish a unitary republic on radically democratic lines, for all Italy.

Niles

thinks that the radicals, in their efforts to control the incipient constituent assembly, are striking at the very existence of monarchical institutions, including that of Piedmont, and are shaking the bases of all authority, law L Tl

Sardinia, Vol. V,'Niles, No. 42, Feb. 24. 1850.

J

86

r

i

and order.

Gioberti and the best of the Sardinian liber­

als are vainly trying to moderate the movement It cannot be disguised that the dissolving princi­ ples of communism and wild democracy have made frightful progress among the lower classes throughout Italy*

2

Niles

says that the public political mind has become demoralized whenever the bases- of an old and respected system of govern­ ment have been suddenly changed or essentially modified*

A

few months before, in Piedmont, everything indicated a ven­ eration for the monarchy and reverence for religion.

But

now these loyalties are broken, and the people are tending g towards lawlessness* We might pause here to observe that the intellectual background of even the moderate liberals was well calcu­ lated to produce the moral deterioration described by the American minister.

De Sanctis, explaining the thought of

the southern Italian Romantic and Idealistic school in 1848, says that all the philosophers and critics were informed by the same spirit; all were fighting for emanci­ pation, to get free from rules and authority; and here, as in everything else, they admitted no other Judge but logic and nature.

These new converts of the Enlighten­

ment attacked even Dante, on both philosophic and liter­ ary grounds, a temerity which, De Sanctis admits, "went

2* l3.

Sardinia , Vol. V , Niles, n .n ., Feb. 22, 1849. '■ Ibid. Ibid*

j

87 r

-i too far.11 He adds that the Hew Othi^ihism fas purely intel­ lectual, not too rooted in the past nor in early educa­ tion, and in fact diametrically opposed to both.1

From

our present vantage point in time, we can venture to douht the prudence of such a determined repudiation of historic roots and national tradition. In a significant passage written towards the end of liis stay at Turin, Niles makes a statement which is both 2 a compliment and a warning to Sardinia. The A m e r i c a n

2.

l

Francesco De Sanctis, gtoria della Letteratura Itali­ ans, nuova edizione:y Milan, n.d., 2 vols.,, Vol. ll, pp. 313-314.) The vastly influential Saggio sulla filosofia della lingua of Cesarotti, says De Sanctis, was the emancipation of language from custom and authority, in the name of philosophy and reason, ”the same thing that was claimed for all social institu­ tions’* (De Sanctis, op. cit., p. 316.) The new lit­ erature, with its insistence on naturalezza, as op­ posed to the perfezione ideale della forma of the old artistic manner, might be said to be a more refined echo of the philosophers’ disavowal of true moral idealism and moral integrity. In De Sanctis’ subse­ quent discussion there is something even more sugges­ tive of the deeper principles of the new philosophy, which, be it remembered, was in high favor with even the moderate liberals of the ’forties and ’fifties. After performing the. remarkable feat of “rescuing the Divine from the supernatural” (ibid., p. 364), the Idealists achieved an even more difficult task, which lesser minds might have called a contradiction. They ttrejected the supernatural, but at the same time ex­ pounded it and respected it” (ibid., p. 371.) They became, in other words, materialists; and, being such, prepared the situation which Niles is here describing. The period is that of Sardinian recuperation after Novara. For the next decade Victor Emmanuel and his advisers, led by the Count de Cavour, will concentrate on developing the constitutional life of the State, and will strengthen the power of the government as op­ posed to all other forces within the nation. The first important measures against the Church — the Siccardi Laws of the Spring of 1850 -- have not yet been passed. j

minister has just transmitted to the Sardinian government a message of greeting from Zachary Taylor, on the occa­ sion of the latter*s election to the Presidency.

Taylor

in his message had paid reverent tribute to Divine Provi­ dence as the Guide and Governor of all nations.

Niles

observes that this sentiment, Bwhich lies at the bottom of political, as well as of all moral obligations,n seems to have vanished completely on the continent.

This, he

thinks, furnishes just grounds of alarm for the safety of 1 the social system. It is a painful acknowledgment, he says, yet it is none the less true, that the principles of Christianity have been throughout Europe almost universally abandoned as a basis of government.

Sardinia is one of the points

where the religious sentiment and Christian faith still maintain their ascendancy, and therefore the kingdom is enabled to resist the Apolitical and infidel heresies*1 emanating from Prance and Germany and threatening to re~ 2 duce the Old World to a state of barbarism. It would have been Interesting to learn Niles* reaction to the anti-Church policy of Sardinia during the next few years, if the American minister had stayed in Italy that long. Another error of the liberals of 1848-1849, thinks Niles, is their belief that a mere change of political T~.

Sardinia, Vol. V, Niles, No. 40, Jan. 27, 1850.

2.

Ibid.

89

r

"i

system 'Will cure all political and social evils*

No

thoroughgoing amelioration in the conditions of European society can be secured by means of such a superficial remedy.

It is- even true that the evils affecting the Old

World, and the obstacles to true liberty, would be aggra­ vated rather than reduced by more popular forms of govern­ ment * The American minister even pays a compliment to the governments which, in 1848-1849, both the moderates and the radicals had sought to overthrow.

H© feels that most

of the existing governments of Europe have, since the French Revolution, been striving to give their subjects gradually every practicable degree of liberty compatible with public order, which, as he observes justly, is all thafe the most liberal forms can give*

2

A remark which Niles made in the mid-summer of 1849 deserves special attention.

It is pregnant with meaning,

the full force of which even he, perhaps, did not fully realize: There is an almost irresistible tendency in all Governments, whatever may be their form, to look for the remedy of existing political evils in the extension of the acknowledged principle on which they are founded* This would mean that nations must be true to their T.

2. 3* L

Sardinia, Vol. V/Niles, No* 42, Sardinia, Vol. V, Niles, No. 40, Sardinia, Vol. V, Niles, No. 33,

Feb. 24, 1850. Jan. 27, 1850. Aug. 27, 1849. J

90 r

. native genius and historic political evolution.

They can

"*

never successfully get too far away from their traditional political roots.

Xf they are, for instance, to he trans­

formed from paternalistic monarchies to constitutional ones, the change must be organic and natural, and not superimposed from without or from above.^

The implica­

tions of this doctrine with regard to Italy are important, when we remember that the states of the peninsula had for centuries been accustomed to monarchical rule of a pater­ nalistic type, based on respect for and cooperation with the Catholic religion.

It is therefore an open question,

at least, whether they were peculiarly fitted for the reception of a constitutional liberalism which felt itself eonis^Baineh eventually to dispense with an independent Catholic Church. T!

L

Bertrando Spaventa,a coryphaeus of "the liberals, has expressed the truth clearly: "If we Italians as a nation have not an internal principle of life and movement... all means are useless; if life is not imparted from within, from the most intimate part of our being, no power... can inspire it from without ("Frammenti di studi sulla filosofia italiana del secolo XVI,” Monitore Bibliografico, (ed. G. Daelli), Turin, 1852, XXXII, p . 48.) Spaventa insists on the unforced character of true nationality, with special application to Italy: "Nationality is for a people what the subject (ji.1 soggettqj is for the individual — the personality, the subject, the consciousness of oneself and of onefs own determinations..• Hence it is a contradiction to wish the risorgimento of Italy, and to wish it by means of force of arms — which is necessary, but not enough, since national­ ity is the life of the spirit” (ibid.) [Italics inserted!]

J

91 The significance of the American testimony studied in this chapter may be briefly summarized thus:

Nathaniel

Niles, watching the first great attempt to, unify Italy, has doubts on the following main points:

he is not sure

of the real worth of Piedmontese liberalism; he is not sure of the Italians1 capacity to govern themselves; and he is not sure that the proposition of a single government for all Italy Is a good one.

Besides, he utters a rather

solemn warning to the effect that Italy, to be finally unified, must be unified in such wise as to respect all her legal, moral, and religious obligations.

Would he

have changed his mind on any of these four points if he had remained at Turin to witness the next great act in the drama of unification?

L

j

92 r

"I

CHAPTER FOUR Piedmont in the,'fifties In March of 1849, Charles Albert renewed the war against Austria, but was quickly defeated at Novara, March 23, 1849.

The national movement was then controlled by

the radical republicans until General Oudinot's entry into Rome (June 29, 1849) and the defeat of Garibaldi. Piedmont for the next decade resumed her traditional policy of watchful waiting as regards Italian unification, while concentrating her energies on her own internal con­ stitutional development.

The idea of a Piedmontese lead­

ership of the national crusade was never relinquished, but only temporarily postponed.

Indeed, the unfortunate

events of 1848-1849 had further clarified Piedmontese policy in this respect.

Cavour, who was the real formula-

tor of Victor Emmanuel's program throughout the 'fifties, was to be ultimately converted to the plan (first proposed by the republicans) of a

unitary Italy, as opposed to any

kind of a federation; and, of course, the principle of Piedmontese hegemony over this unitary kingdom was to be reasserted with even greater vehemence. But our main interest at present lies in the story of Piedmont's gradual transformation throughout the decade into a powerful constitutional monarchy, far surpassing in this respect- all the other states of the peninsula.

L

The

j

93 r

importance of this study is heightened by the fact that

“l

the Kingdom of Italy, when finally born in 1860, reflected with great precision the constitutional character of her 1 Piedmontese .parent*

The first great step forward in the path of liberal reform begins with the passage of the Siccardl haws in the spring of 1850.

We have here the first plain indica­

tion of a policy which was to characterize the Piedmonese and the later Italian State —

a policy of the omnicom­

petence of the State, or, in other words, the application of the principle that the State must control all public activities of its citizens, both as individuals and as

1*

L

For this period of Piedmontese history vide: Bolton King, A History of Italian Unity, 1814-1871, (4th impression), 2 vpTs•, London, 1934, Vol. II. W. H. Thayer, Life and Times of Savour, 2 vols., Boston, 1911. A* Whyte, Political Life and Letters of Cavour, London, 1925, contributing new material from~the papers of Hudson, British minister at Turin. W. K. Hancock, Ricasoli and the Risorgimento in Tuscany, London, 1926. Gius. Massari, La Vita ed il“~Regno di Vittorio Emanuele II di Savoia, (2nd ed.), 2 vols., MiTan, 1878. Pietro Orsi, Cavour £ la formazione del regno d*Italia, Turin, 1913, Paul Matter, Cavour et 1 Tunite italienne, 3 vols., Paris, 1922-1927. Maurice Pal^ogue, Un grande realiste * Cavour, Paris, 1926, F.'De Sanctis, La letteratura~ta 1iana nel secolo XIX; scuola liberals scuola democratica, Naples’]! 1902, presenting essential difference between the Moderates and Radicals. For the history of Piedmont in its European setting: Alfred Stern, Geschichte Europas seit den Vertragen von 1815 bis zum Frankfurter Frieden von 1871, 10 vols., Berlin, 1894-1924.

j

94 r grouped in corporate bodies, even religious corporate

i

bodies. At this point we are making no accusations, no impu­ tations of anything like State Totalitarianism, although, we may just as well admit, that charge will come later. We are merely, for the moment, stating a fact:

the Pied­

montese State, from at least 1850 onward, sought to make itself supreme arbiter of the public activities of all the individuals and of all the societies —

even religious

societies such as the Catholic Church -- within its bor­ ders.

This is the clear and unmistakable meaning of what

we may term, for convenience, the anti-Church laws, such as the Siccardi measures. It is idle to debate here as to whether there was, in this policy, any deeper motive of an anti-religious or 1 an anti-Catholic nature. Very probably in the case of many, at least, of the politicians, there was no such in­ tention.

What is undeniable is this:

whether from anti-

Catholic motives or not, the Piedmontese leaders sought for the State an unrivalled and supreme jurisdiction over all spheres of its citizensr public activity.

The rest

of this chapter will be devoted to an elucidation of this fact. By the Siccardi Laws the ecclesiastical courts were IT L

This precise question," however, will be addressed in subsequent chapters. J

95

r

~i

abolished, the number of Church holidays restricted, churches were deprived of the right of asylum, and reli­ gious corporations were restricted in the exercise of their right of acquiring real property. these measures was evident:

The effect of

the Church’s competence in

several fields of public activity was being sharply cur­ tailed, and the State’s competence in the same fields was being proportionately extended.

Waiving, for the moment,

the question of right, this is what actually was happening. The laws aroused great opposition on the part of the Clerical party, and occasioned a bitter debate in the Par­ liament.

In defence of the measures Cavour gave his first

important parliamentary address on March 7, 1850, This, however, was only the beginning.

Seven months

later, in October, 1850, Cavour entered d ’Azeglio’s minis­ try as. head of the Department of Agriculture and Commerce, and for the next year pushed vigorously ahead his economic and financial reforms.

In early 1852 the great statesman

succeeded d ’Azeglio as Premier, and (say the liberals) the real and accelerated progress of Piedmont began.

Liberal­

ism, in all its cherished tenets, was the gospel of the wGreat Ministry” formed by Cavour,

The other states of

Italy looked on Piedmont as the model for all aspirants to true and enlightened constitutionalism,'}

L

J

96 r

i

It is useful to hear the opinions of the American

minister William B. Kinney on the condition of Piedmont 1 at this time. His first reports are almost uniformly in praise of the Gavourian regime.

Real advances are being made in

the direction of representative, constitutional govern-

ment.

2

The people of the kingdom are solidly in support 3 of the king. Sardinian liberalism is no mere mirage, 4 but a splendid reality. In no subsequent despatch does Kinney pass an adverse judgment on the rule of Victor Emmanuel.

But, by means

of a few unconscious implications, he gives us some grounds for doubting whether this government was providing for its citizens a very substantial brand of liberty. We are given, for example, the significant informa­ tion that the teaching at the University of Turin is under the special superintendence of a newly-created Minister 5 of Instruction. This fact in itself, is, of course, no evidence of anti-liberalism on the part of the govern­ ment; one might argue, indeed, that it indicated the gov­ ernments enlightened interest in education.

But subse­

quent events have an ominous air of familiarity to twen­ tieth century witnesses of dictatorships. 1. 2* i

Kinney was Sardinia, Sardinia, Sardinia, Sardinia,

Lectures at

at Turin throughout the 1850-1853 period. Vol.V, Kinney, No. 15, Nov. 10, 1851. Vol.V, Kinney, No. 13, Sept. 27, 1851. Vol.V, Kinney, No. 22, Mar. 4, 1852. Vol.V, Kinney, No. 15, Nov. 10, 1851.

97 the University take on an increasingly anti-papal tone,

especially as regards the temporal power of the Vatican, and the professors vigorously defend the Staters right to 1 suppress the publication of papal bulls. All this may be perfectly legitimate in the eyes of liberals, past and present.

But there is an obvious analogy with Nazi

and Fascist methods of forming students1 minds in accord with the higher aims of State* There were other evidences, also, of the state’s determination to control the acts of'-its citizens.

From

the very first day of his premiership, Cavour had fought for the passage of the bill secularizing the marriage ceremony, i.e., placing the marriage ceremony under the jurisdiction also of the civil magistracy, whereas pre­ viously it had been under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Church.

In the summer of 1852 the Chamber of Depu­

ties sought to enact the law, but met with such opposi­ tion from the Senate, supported by the large Clerical party, that the measure was defeated.

Efforts to pass

it, however, were continued by the Cavour ministry. This in itself, it is to be remarked again, will cause no scandal to liberals, past or present. significant point is this:

But the

the measure, on its first

proposal, ’’excited afresh the spirit of opposition to the constitutional regime, and the proceedings of the

Sardinia, Vol. V, Kinney, Wo. 15, Nov. 10, 1851.

98 r

“1 reactionary party seem to have produced an unusual degree 1 of excitement throughout the country.tt

This would seem

undoubtedly to indicate a large section of opinion hostile to the proposed law of the liberal government.

It might

be expectdd therefore that such a government would be slow in opposing the wishes of so many of the people. Quite the contrary attitude, however, was assumed by the

ministers of the State, as is evident from the case of Count C o s t a ’s pamphlet. The Count, a wealthy and prominent member of the High Court of Cassation, published a brochure presenting

the Catholic position on the civil marriage question*

2

A

fair perusal of the work reveals nothing inflammatory or subversive of government.

It is, rather, a calm and dig­

nified statement of the Catholic case against the pro­ posed law.

It is vastly more restrained in tone than the

ordinary opposition editorial in an American Republican newspaper against a Democratic President.

It was a cook­

ing dove, indeed, as compared with the tirades which, at the moment of Kinney’s writing, Virginia journals were launching against the Abolitionists.

But it frightened

and annoyed the Sardinian government, and what did the T.

2.

L

Sardinia, Vol. V, Kinney, No.- 29, Aug. 16. 1852. Conte Ignazio Costa delle Torre, Della Giurisdizione della Chiesa Cattolica sul.Contratto di Matrimonio negli Stati CattoIIci; eenni razionalT”e stor i d , Turin, 1852. j

99 i

r government do? The pamphlet, says Kinney, though professedly a sim­

ple discussion of the marriage question, was found to con­ tain, in the opinion of the law officer of the Crown, libellous language concerning the king, an assault on the principles of the constitution, contempt for the laws, and 1 for the magistracy. The author was arraigned, declared guilty by a jury, fined two thousand francs, and imprisoned for two months.

Kinney insists that the ver­

dict is clearly in accord with the public sentiment; but he adds the intriguing bit of information that ^the ver­ dict is generally regarded as furnishing a fresh pledge of the fidelity of the tribunals to the constitutional 2 regime•n Here, it must be admitted, we have not the lineaments of a liberalism that really respects liberty.

In this

eagerness of the government to stifle the voice of the Opposition, and in this rather unwholesome 11fidelity81 of the tribunals to the constitutional regime, there are perceptible the outlines of an altogether different theory of the State. We are scarcely reassured by the remainder of this despatch.

Kinney makes the suggestive remark that the

law officers of the government have on other occasions 1. 2. L

Sardinia, Vol. V, Kinney, No. 29, Aug. 16, 1852. Ibid.

^manifested a determination to prevent abuses!f under the provision of the constitution which provides for the free­ dom of the press.

Opposition journals have occasionally

indulged in a latitude of criticism which the tribunals have declared to be in violation of the laws, and the prescribed fines have been imposed, ffwith,w Kinney hastens to add, ^every appearance of impartiality •** He points to the fact that reactionary and liberal newspa­ pers alike have been penalized for transgressions of the just bounds of free speech; but we cannot help suspecting that it was not the liberal journals which suffered the most • Two months later Kinney himself expresses a serious doubt as to whether the government has gone too far, or not far enough, in its efforts to suppress ancient usa­ ges.1

He admits that ^the impatient spirit of the country 2 has experienced something of a check.11 The introduction of the Marriage Bill has served to widen the breach between the Sardinian parties, and has given fresh vital­ ity to the reactionary group.

This latter party embraces

a considerable portion of the old nobility and most of the fifty thousand ecclesiastics. The objective critic might presume that an opposi** tion of such volume would give pause to a government based, T.

2. 3.

Sardinia, Vol. V, Kinney, No. 33, Oct. 30, 1852. Ibid. Ibid.

101

r

at least in'theory, on popular consent.

After all, the

n

reactidnaries were also a part, and a considerable part,

of the people.

The plain fact emerging from the American

minister’s reports is this:

a large portion of Sardinian

opinion is not in accord with the government’s anti-Church policy, and all praise of the government’s representative character must be tempered by a recognition of this fact. In the same despatch Kinney notes that the spirit of opposition has been increased still further by a ^popular” movement calling for a law transferring the management of ecclesiastical estates to the civil power.

The sole

grounds on which this rather remarkable transaction is to be effected is that the large holdings of the Church are said to constitute an impediment to progress.

The

more idealistic reason is advanced that the properties, in the hands of the State, might be made to yield larger revenues to the Church! The ministry withstood the ’’popular*1 pressure and no move was made at this time against the Church’s pos­ sessions.

But a few years later such a law was passed;

and one is constrained to speculate as to whether the Catholic opposition, so strong in 1852, had dwindled to an ineffectual force in such a short time.

The probable

answer is that the opposition still existed in 1856, when the anti-Church measures were finally enacted, but the government by that time felt itself strong enough to --------- Sa

^

LIBRARY

j

102

disregard the protests.

Kinney was succeeded at Turin by John Moncure Daniel, who acted as American minister there from June of 1853 until February of 1861.

He was-an ardent statesT rights

American, a Jacksonian Democrat of unique stamp, and his early views on the Revolution may be judged from an effu­ sion of which he unburdened himself before he arrived in Italy.

Writing editorially in the Richmond Examiner in

1849 he eulogizes with unreserve, not to say flamboyance, 1 the Italian revolution of that year. Several similar expressions of his opinion prior to 1853 prove that he is no sluggard in his devotion to the cause of liberty, and obviously no admirer of the Pope.

Both these facts,

it is to be noted here, lend special importance to his later testimony. First, before studying Daniel fs reports in chrono** logical.order, it will be helpful to indicate an interesting !U

L.

wFacts justify us in regardingthe present day as that .of a final fight between the people and their kings... In Italy we -see a gallant city Rome .•. standing erect in the face of two of the most powerful nations in Europe, fighting bravely for liberty and honestly for independence. The ancient mistress of the world once more lifts her laurelled head from the sleep of ages, once more draws the sword that flashed from the tropics to the poles, and recolle.cts the names of her Junil and Cincinnati... The people will not permit their soldiery to bear back a renegade Pope to his place, Tike some foul Eastern idol, over the necks of a prostrate and bleeding people...1* (Richmond Exami­ ner, June 15, 1849.) [italic s~inser tedT[ j

103 r

"i change in the minister's estimate of the Sardinian govern­ ment • In the Fall of 1853, about a year after Cavour's assumption of the premiership, Daniel said: Under the present state of things there is more freedom in the laws [in Sardinia] than in England, and in consequence this kingdom is flourishing to an extent long unknown in an Italian state. Seven years later he writes: ... and although that country [Sardinia^ has a constitution and is theoretically freer than France, there is but little in real practice and fact to choose between the two.^ It may be objected immediately that the comparison is unfair, since in 1860 Sardinia was girding herself for a war, and the government would be naturally forced to take extraordinary measures of repression.

But Daniel

anticipates the objection, and, at least partially, answers it:

wIt is true that the crisis of war excuses

such measures, but there are those who believe that they may continue after the war Is over.**

To return to the first years of Daniel's stay at 1.

L

Sardinia, Vol. VI, Daniel, No . ' ~2~, Nov. 21, 1855. Vo1- VII> Daniel, No. 135, Feb. 14, 1860. Sardinia, Vol. VI, Daniel, No. Ill, June 20, 1859. Although this despatch was written eight months before No. 135, Daniel is referring to the same general repressive policy of the government.

j

104 r

"i

Turin: In view of the fact that a liberal government is by definition based on popular consent, there is a slightly suspicious sound to the American minister’s reports of the emeutes which are occurring in 1854 in various parts of the kingdom.^

Evidently not all the Sardinians were

in full accord with their government’s policy.

What

makes these risings all the more significant is the fact that at this time the most critical question of internal policy was the proposal to suppress the monastic estab­ lishments. Further, the methods adopted for repressing these revolts seem strangely out of place in a liberal regime. The Ministry, says Daniel regretfully, whave shown their shallow knowledge of history, human nature and practical government” by making in consequence of these tumults no less than four hundred arrests already, and are continu2 m g to make more. The persons arrested ,are for the most part ignorant peasants.

These, it is believed, will be

mildly treated by the courts; but if the ringleaders are discovered, it is highly probable that they will be 3 publicly executed.

2. 3.

L

Sardinia, Vol. VI, Daniel, No. 4, Jan. 4, 1854 Ibid. Ibid. It is worth remarking that these peasants con­ stituted about two-thirds of the population of Pied­ mont, so, if very many of them were dissatisfied, a large portion of Piedmont was dissatisfied. J

105 r

“1

On November 28, 1854, Cavour began to speed up his anti-Church program.

On that day he introduced in the

Chamber the so-called Rattazzi Bill, the main provision* of which were as follows:

1) All religious orders and

congregations were to be abolished except those devoted to public instruction, preaching, or to the care of the sick; 2) No new religious order or congregation was to be created without the sanction of Parliament;' 3) No new members were to be received into existing orders or con­ gregations without the permission of the Parliament; 4) Several chapters of collegiate churches and several bene­ fices were entirely suppressed; 5) The revenues of the suppressed orders and congregations were turned over to the State, which would henceforth pay stipends or pen­ sions to the members of the disestablished societies. The measure, after experiencing bitter opposition from the Clericals, who were powerful in the Senate, was finally passed by the latter body on May 22, 1855, by the close vote Of 53 to 42.

In the summer of 1854 Daniel begins his series of despatches bearing on this anti-Church policy of the gov­ ernment • A despatch of July, 1854, gives the first hint of the ministry’s intentions.

L

The political church and the

J

106 clerical party seem to be completely destroyed, 1 "absolutely annihilated.11 The priesthood has lost all influence over, the people, for the government has seized the property of the seminaries, and this law "deprives the clericals of their final resort for the recovery of 2 influence.” The American’s coipment that this clerical party was for centuries the bane of the kingdom, does not nullify the clear implication of the Sardinian program — an attempt on the part of a nliberal” government to nul­ lify, in effect, the autonomy of a hitherto independent spiritual society within the State. For this indeed was the character of the anti- Church laws of 1854.

While not striking directly and immediately

at the spirital power of the Church, the Rattazzi Laws !U 2. 3.

L

Sardinia, Vol. VT, Daniel, No. 11, July1 10, 1854. Ibid. In the same despatch we are further surprised by another detail of Piedmontese policy in regard to religion. A law has been passed making it a criminal offence for the clergy to "convert their pulpits... into a place... for political diatribes against the laws, constitution, and government of this land” (ibid.) This, of course, may have been a harmless provision, aimed at a clergy which may in fact have been tresspassing on the temporal sphere. Daniel indeed thinks that the law was much needed in Pied­ mont; but he seems to forget the vital fact that the government was to be the sole judge of what constitu­ ted a political sermon. The American instinct has always shrunk from considering precisely such restric­ tions of individual liberty. Within Daniel’s own memory (December 12, 1847) Archbishop John Hughes of New York had been invited by the American Congress to preach a sermon in the House of Representativest

J

107 strove to subordinate to State jurisdiction every eccles­ iastical activity touching in any degree on the civil sphere.

Instances of such ecclesiastical activity were,

first, the Church's acquiring of real property (which always involved a civil contract), or, secondly, her spe­ cial training of clerics (which involved the isolation, to a great extent, of those clerics from the normal duties and interests of the citizen), or, thirdly, the regulating of the conditions requisite for a valid marriage (which conditions would be recognized also by the civil law), or, lastly, the Church's undisturbed direction of bishops and priests in their specifically spiritual functions ( an exercise of jurisdiction which, admittedly, involved a limitation of the State's opportunities for employing those persons in the furtherance of purely civil concerns.) It was this kind of mixed activity, this activity of Tl

L

If the following view of a representative liberal writer was widely accepted by that school, the logi­ cal conclusion was the destruction not only of the Church's temporal power, but of her spiritual inde­ pendence as well: 11A discrepancy profound and inca­ pable of conciliation exists between the fundamental principles of constitutional states and the maxims of Roman ji.e., CatholicQright. Liberty, as it is understood today and practiced by the greater number of European states, is regarded by the Roman Church as being the perennial fount of moral ruin and of civil perversion. This is the perpetual contrast, ... Religion, on the one hand, and on the other, Liberty*1 (N. Bianchi, Storia document at a della Diplo­ ma zia Europea in Italia dall' anno 1814 all' anno 1861, B vols., Turin-Naples, 1870, Vol. VII, pp. 868777 J

108 r both a spiritual and temporal character, which the government of Piedmont wished to control. the policy was this:

But the evil of

the Church*s freedom to pursue her

purely spiritual aims and duties was so dependent on her freedom to exercise these spiritual-temporal activities, that to destroy the latter freedom was to destroy like­ wise the former.

If, for instance, the Church, at the

will of the State, could be prevented from acquiring real property, the Church was deprived of the necessary materi­ al basis for the free exercise of her spiritual ministry. The Church could not freely perform her spiritual func­ tions and administer her spiritual aids, without the free acquisition and free disposal and free management of sacred edifices, school buildings, and the like. Similarly, if the Church were inhibited by the State from freely establishing orders and congregations, and from "freely recruiting in their behalf, the Church was obviously deprived of the necessary workers for her spi­ ritual ministry.^

If the Church were deprived of her con­

trol over the marriage ceremony, she was prevented from exercising her spiritual guardianship over the most vital Yl

L

It never seems to have occurred to the Italian liberals that in dis-establishing the religious congrega­ tions the State was blocking the exercise of one of the most fundamental of individual rights, the free choice of one*s profession. After 1860 the practice of the clerical career was rendered extremely diffi­ cult and, in some instances, impossible. At the same period the American Government was exempting religious congregations from tax burdens. J

1 constituent of society, the family.

If, lastly, the

Church was hindred from exercising freely her jurisdiction over her bishops and priests, the Church was wounded fatally in an essential point of her purely spiritual ad­ ministration.

The Church1s spiritual power was just as

effectually paralyzed by this indirect method as though her spiritual power had been directly attacked.

2

1.

On this point a Catholic writer noted (in 1876) the difference between the Italian and American systems. In the United States, he says, ”the religious cele­ bration of matrimony makes it valid in the eyes of the law. The certificate whrch is given to the par­ ties by the sacred minister, suffices fully for all juridical actions in the civil tribunal11 (”I1 liberalismo e gli Stati Uniti di America,” Civilta Cattolica, Ser. IX, Vol. IX (1876), p. 2857) “tEI s was most emphatically not the case in Piedmont in 1854, nor in the later Italian Kingdom, where the religious celebration of matrimony furnished no basis whatever for action in the civil ,courts. Particularly in a Catholic country such as Italy, this inhibition seri­ ously weakened the Church*s control over a contract which is basically religious.

2.

The conclusion is inescapable that some,, at least, of the liberals, chose this latter method. The deputy Brofferio, for example, when arguing in behalf of the Rattazzi haws, complained that clerical education was the poison of society, because it instilled into the hearts of youth the maxims of the Roman Curia (quoted in W. R. Thayer, Life and Times of Cavour, 2 vols., Boston, 1911, Vol. I, p. 344 .) Again, the argument underlying the following passage from a Lib­ eral historian certainly implies the necessity of an attack on the Church1s spiritual prerogatives: ”A single power i.e. the Church which presumes to b©;by divine.constitution, beyond and above all earthly powers, dominating therefore over the State, must, be tamed” (A. Simioni, Le Origin! del Risorgimento Ital., p. 33.) The author then refers to the Henormous mor­ al importance enjoyed by the priesthood in a country Qie is referring to Naplejj)— completely dominated byv, religious superstition |i7e* the Catholic Religionjf* (Ibid.) The obvious implication of the whole passaged is that this ”moral importance” should be destroyed. But it is difficult to see how this can be done by the State without trespassing on the spiritual sphere.

110

r Therefore, undesignedly perhaps, the Piedmontese State was violating the first principle of civil freedom,

which asserts that the government may not destroy the liberty of a society, religious or otherwise, within the State, unless that society shall have been convicted of

some illegality or as constituting a positive danger to the state*

Both of these charges were made, hut they

were never proved against the Ohurch in Piedmont.

In

fact, in the debates of 1854-1855 the liberals rested their case mainly on principles of political convenience and expediency*

quite clear

The words of the American minister are

on this point*

1

What the government of Piedmont was really doing was assuming jurisdiction in the purely spiritual sphere, by hindering and prescribing the essential operations of a religious society.

Such a usurpation is today universally

recognized as one of the chief marks of the Totalitarian State* Furthermore, by so doing, the government was destroy** ing one of the most effective of all checks to State

L

1* ttI have looked anxiously for some. .. justification for the suppression of the monastic congregations. I have read the proclamation of the government and the articles of its newspapers. All the defence I have found is reducible to two statements: first, that the monks and nuns do no good to the common weal, that they are idle drones in the way of all improve­ ment, producing nothing; second, that the rest of the people want the monksf and nuns1 property to make barracks, hospitals, etc.” (Sardinia, Vol. VI, Daniel, n.n., Sept. 4, 1854.

J

I ll

^despotism.

The Catholic Church in Piedmont was, from the ”1

juristic standpoint, a private autonomous society, a legal right to independence*

1

with

The assertion of the

State’s right not merely to limit hut practically to annul the independence of this society was an assertion which set up a precedent highly dangerous to all societies wwlthin the State.

If the rights of one particular society

could he thus attacked, what guarantee remained for other and non-religious societies, such as, for example, an industrial corporation, or an association of workingmen, or a chartered educational institution?

On the other

hand, recognition hy the State of the Church’s indepen­ dence would have "been an admission hy the State that no T~.

L

As a matter of fact, the Church in Piedmont was even more than this. It was also a public society, i.e., a society recognized hy the first article of the Piedmontese constitution as possessing a special legal right to exist as the original religious insti­ tution of the country.

J

112

r

11

private society in Piedmont could be illegally destroyed.

The foregoing criticism by the present writer may appear to be an undue excursion by a professed historian into the perilous field of apologetics.

It is indeed

true that, in the present subject, the line between sound historical interpretation and apologetics is difficult to draw.

This fact is luminously evident in the usual

method of the liberal historians I

But the facts of his­

tory cannot be completely understood unless they are

17

L

A recent writer has said: wWe may have our opinion of the society which the clericalist desired to main­ tain. But it is not to be denied that the fundamen­ tal principle of ecclesiastical protagonists, the recognitionoof other societies beyond, the State, so far from being an unwarrantable encroachment on civil rights, is the best preservative against the prac­ tical dangers which may...follow from an acceptance of the undiluted conception of legal sovereignty... Political liberty was born, not so much in the no­ tions of the Independents, as in the fact that they refused to be merged in other societies** (J. N. Figgis, •Political Thought in the Sixteenth Century,** Cambridge Modern History, 14 vols., N.Y., 1909, Vol. Ill, p. 767. J A suggestive comparison might be made between the anti-Church policy of Piedmont and a more recent totalitarianism. Michael Cardinal von Faulhauber, as reported from Berne, Switzerland, May 8, 1942, has issued an eleven-point indictment of the aggressions of the Nazi government against both Catholic^and Protestant churches in the Reich. Among the churchman’s charges we meet with the familiar prohibi­ tions by the government of the wreading of certain episcopal documents from the pulpits**; the government’s insistence that devotion to a super-national church prevents the development of a conscience of nation­ ality**; restrictions on religious instruction in the schools; confiscations of church property, and the prevention of assemblies for religious purposes (New York Times, May 9, 1942.) J

113 r

*i

grasped in their significance and inner meaning; and, to. the present writer, this deeper character of the Piedmon-

tese politique has in the preceding pages been presented not unfairly.

In late July of 1854 the Piedmontese government began its attack on the monastic properties.

this program Daniel writes a long report,

1

Concerning

which is

remarkable for its unreserved condemnation of the govern­ m e n t s action. The American minister speaks from premises of American respect for legality and from American reverence for in­ dividual rights.

He is no defender of the monastic system.

He believes indeed that it is !,mischievous and detrimental 2 to the prosperity of the State,11 and thinks even that its suppression on the score of temporary expediency would be wise.

But, he says, whether it is wise to trample on

the right of property for any temporary good, is a ques­ tion which no American can even consider. The monasteries and convents have existed as religious corporations from time immemorial.

Their existence, their

power to inherit and to possess property has been recognized and confirmed.

Much of their real estate has been bestowed

on them by individuals with the intention that it be used perpetually for the support of the monks and nuns.

The

Sardinia, Vol. VI, Daniel, n.n., Septl 4, 1854. L

Ibid.

J

114 r

government’s seizure of the monastic properties is irre­

"i

concilable with the principles of ”one who has been educa­ ted in the ideas and customs of the United States. Daniel then seeks the root explanation of this arbit­ rary act, and arrives at a conclusion which would not be pleasant to the ears of Italian liberals.

The Italian

politician, he thinks, is temperamentally incapable of conceiving and administering a government really obser­ vant of the principles of freedom.

The acts against the

monasteries would seem impossible, monstrous, unaccount­ able, did we not recollect one grand principle which dis­ tinctly separates all the political ideas of the Latin 1.

L

The following part of the despatch is worth reprodu­ cing: ”It has been my lot to witness here, in this Liberal and well-ordered country, scenes and acts nearly parallel to those which rendered most memor­ able/ in the constitutional history of England, the reign of Henry the Eighth To the eyes of an American these scenes are so remarkable that I pro­ pose to make a brief statement of them in this Des­ patch The government, acting in its own will and judgment, unsupported by legal decisions or public laws that I am aware of, has seized the property of a vast number of these corporations, and is seizing, and will hereafter seize on the property of a great many more. The proprietors protest, and sometimes resist. When they do so, their doors are broken open, or their walls are cut through, and the nuns or monks, as the case may be, are dragged or pushed out by the soldiers and gendarmes. Their houses are then con­ verted into barracks, hospitals, etc...” It is slight­ ly surprising that Fietro Orsi refers to Piedmont as presenting at this period a 11sublime spectacle of ordered liberty” (L rItalia Moderns, p. 218.) Similar adulations may be found in Gori, II Risorg. Ital., pp. 116-119, and G-ius, Massari, LiTVita ed il Regno di Vittorio jEmacnuol@ II di Savoia, 2nd ed., 2 vols., Milan, 1875, Vol.“I, pp. 159-160, Vol. II, pp. 275-284. j

115

r

n

races from those of a Teutonic Qr Anglo-xSa^scm origin. The idea, he continues, which lies at the foundation of the whole American political organization, the princi­ ple which gives vitality to American laws and which forms the basis

of American society, is that individuals pos­

sess rights which can be interfered with neither by other individuals nor by the State; that there is a circle around every man over which the laws and the State, how­ ever strong, can never step; and that in proportion as that circle is wide or narrow, the government is bad or good.

To Daniel it appears that this idea has no root in

the South of Europe, among the Latin races*

Their notion

of a State, whether republic, monarchy,, or oligarchy, is despotism controlled by temporary expediency*

Their prin­

ciple of government is that the individual is nothing, if weak, and that the State is everything, if strong.

An

act such as this sequestration of property would, if execu­ ted by the government of the United States, shatter that government in a single day and forever destroy the people’s 1*

L

While generalizing here somewhat dangerously, Daniel has perceived the truth which lay at the basis, of the Clericals’- opposition to the new regime* The whole point at issue was one of the origin of rights* Both the Clericals and the founders of the American Consti­ tution believed that fundamental individual and cor­ porate rights were inalienable; the Italian liberals, by their own ,profession$, believed that these same rights had their primitive origin In the State,- i.e., the State conceded these rights.

J

116 r

devotion to their rulers.

1

The Ams rican minister then contrasts with the Con** vents Law the recent Dred Scott decision of the United

States Supreme Court, which upheld the right of private property even at the price of implicitly endorsing 2 slavery. He concludes hy reaffirming his conviction that the government of piedmont was, hy intention at least, the hest he knew in Europe. Yl

2.

L

Its .leaders mean to

To supplement this last observation of Daniel *s we might note the contrast between American and Italian concepts of religious freedom as indicated hy a cor­ respondent of the clerical periodical Civilta Catto# lica in 1853. After recounting the flourishing status of Catholic schools, convents, and similar institutions in the United States,, this correspondent writes; wTo many of our Italians...it may appear strange... that in this republic so jealous of its lib­ erty and the scene of such real and undeniable prog­ ress...not the least respected persons in the country should be precisely those whom our own *regenerators1 in Italy are seeking...to discredit, destroy, and an­ nihilate, on the grounds that their existence and activity is incompatible with progress and liberty. The strangeness of the American spectacle arises from the Italian liberals’ belief that liberty is not a blessing to be granted to all, that liberty can co­ exist with persecutions...instigated by paid mobs, and that nothing is more opposed to liberty than edu­ cation dispensed by religious orders... But, in the United States, liberty is not a tyranny exercised by demagogues, ... but here liberty is liberty, and for all...." (Civ. Cat., Ser. I, Vol. II (1853)-, pp. 655656.) “While this sequestration in Piedmont has been a.ctnally going on, the Law of the United States has been roused to its utmost effort for the protection of a master in his rights over a run-away negro... It is curious to compare the two countries at that m o m e n t . ( I n c i d e n ­ tal interest attaches to this passage from the fact that Daniel was a strong pro-slavery advocate, who, after 1861, cast in his lot with the seceding South.)

J

117

r

“? do right, and its laws are liberal and good.

But when he

witnesses such a transaction as that just described*

he

feels that the Piedmontese lack the fundamental idea of a good government.^

In the light of the foregoing testimony, we are rather surprised to find Daniel, with some inconsistency, condoning the anti-Church measures fifteen months later. There were grounds, he thinks, for some kind of action by the government against the clergy, who enjoyed in Piedmont an overweening degree of influence and power.

Their num­

bers are far too many in proportion to the rest of the population.

Their revenues are extravagant.

The educa­

tional institutions of the country are in their hands. The ecclesiastical courts, with civil and criminal juris­ diction supported by the Church’s temporal power, are a continual source of annoyance to the State.

He says that

Piedmont has been a Paradise for Priests; and he thinks it is not surprising that "the first utterance of the people should demand the limitation of clerical power.**

2

The last sentence can be questioned on two grounds. In the first place, the TT

limiting of clerical power by

Nicomede Bianchi has no such scruples. He refers to the 1853-1854 contest with the Church as "a severe proof through which Piedmont had inevitably to pass if she wished to preserve and to consolidate her free form of government" (Storia documentata, Vol. VII, p. 86.) Sardinia, Vol. VI, Daniel, No. 39, Jan. 1, 1856.

118 r

*1

the state, if it were to be done according to the best traditions of liberalism, had to be done with due respect for acquired rights*

In the second place, while the Pied­

montese liberals claimed that the anti-Church laws were an wutterance of the people,11 the claim had much evidence against it, as will be shown by later testimony of Daniel 1 himself. The State, indeed, by these laws, was violating its own constitution. anomaly.

The American minister recognizes the

By the first clause of the constitution, he

says, the Roman Catholic jFaith is declared to be the reli­ gion of the State; yet

one of the first uses which the

Piedmontese people [?1 made of their liberty was to com2 mence a war on the Catholic Church. This is not to deny that there was a real problem facing the Piedmontese State.

In the opinion of the pres­

ent writer, the power of the Church on its strictly tem­ poral side,, i.e., as regards its revenues, its civil and criminal jurisdiction, was too extended.

That power had

to be curtailed, if the new state were to exist and oper­ ate freely.

But it is an entirely different thing to say

that the Church should have been rendered helpless, espe­ cially in its distinctively spiritual realm^of activity. And that this was the real aim of the State it is diffi­ cult to deny, when we pursue Daniel*s testimony further. 1. L 2.

Vide infra pp. Sardinia, Vol. VI, Daniel, No. 39, Jan. 1, 1856.

119 *“

-i

At the beginning of 1856 he says that it is becoming evident that the State, for its

own protection, must "strip

the Church of the Church’s numbers and wealth,"1

The dom­

estic struggle, he asserts, has been directed to this end. The number of prelates has been essentially diminished by non-presentation to sees vacated by death and other causes; and by the Convent haw of 1855 many clerical orders have been suppressed.

Step by step the government will proceed

with the work until the Church of Piedmont is reduced to the position of a dependent and salaried agent of the civil power. There can be but one meaning of this policy.

Whether

Daniel realized it or not, the program bears the character­ istic mark of the totalitarian State, which seeks to break not only the temporal, but also the spiritual power of an independent Church within its borders, by depriving that Church of the necessary means of existence.

An indication of a strong popular opposition to the government’s Church policy is found in the considerable difficulty which the ministry had experienced in passing the

Convent Bill of 1855.

In the senate the majority

were dead against the measure, but Daniel-prophesied significantly that the opposition would be overcome by XI 2. L

Sardinia, Vol. VI, Daniel, No. 39, Jan. 1, 1856. Ibid. j

120 "1

3_

r the creation of a hatch of new senators.

A sufficient

number was, apparently not thus created, for in April of 1855 the Senate defeated the hill and the Cavour ministry as a consequence resigned.

2

Finally the law was passed.

3

But the fact remains that a conservative opposition power­ ful enough to overthrow a Cavour cabinet had nearly blocked the measure, and had been overridden only by force. By the Fall of 1857 the clerical-conservative party has still enough strength to weaken seriously the parlia­ mentary support of another Cavour ministry.

The conser­

vatives have tripled their representation in parliament, the government retaining a majority, but one much reduced and unreliable.

Should the opposition make a move for a

reconciliation with Rome, the ministry will stand in 4 great danger of defeat. All this is obviously not a picture of a government secure and legitimized by a solid backing in the country•

On other grounds, too, the American minister makes us doubt whether the Piedmontese government is granting effective liberty to its subjects. Some Turin newspapers which had made uncomplimentary remarks with regard to France were seized by the government T.

2*

L_

Sardinia, Vol. Sardinia, Vol. Sardinia, Vol. Sardinia, Vol.

VI,Daniel, No. 19, Jan. 12, 1855. VI, Daniel, No. 23, Apr. 30, 1855. VI, Daniel, n.n., May 5, 1855. VI, Daniel, No. 79, Nov. 21, 1857. j

121

r

and their issues sequestrated.

wSuch procedure,w remarks

n

Daniel, w seems strange in a country which professes to give unlimited freedom to its p r e s s . B u t ,

he continues,

while the press is actually free to discuss Sardinian af­ fairs, the weakness of the country compels the government to he very arbitrary when journals presume to comment on

the strong neighboring despotisms.

2

Two journals of

Turin, on demand of the Spanish minister, have been sub­ jected to heavy fines and imprisonment for being witty at the expense of Queen Isabella*

Daniel observes in

the Fall of 1855 that the liberty of the press, which had been one of the state’s marked characteristics, has pretty 4 well ceased to exist in Sardinia. Four years later we are given more explicit testi­ mony in regard to the government’s limitations on personal liberty.

The American minister goes so far as to say

that the privileges of the people are wholly suspended, and that they are living under an absolutism headed by Count Cavour.

Neither the press, nor the tongue, nor the
and P. C. Boggio, Da Montevideo a Palermo, pp. T49^I58. A rather surprising admission concerning the corrupting influence of liberal doctrines in Naples at this time is made by Leone Carpi, l rItalia vivente; aristocrazia di nascita e del denaro; borghesia clero - burocrazia; studi social!, Milan, 1875, pp. 5558. The great mistake of the 11new nobility,” he thinks, lay in the fact that they disregarded the “traditional -» historical roots” of Naples (ibid.)

149 1

*what the people wish. It is, however, in August of 1860, just before Garibaldi*s invasion of Naples, that Daniel presents his most striking piece of information concerning the real attitude of the people of Sicily and Naples# After establishing his position in Sicily in the mid­ summer of 1860, the leader of The Thousand delayed, much to the annoyance of the more radical, his attack on the Neapolitan mainland#

The American minister explains the

reason for this hesitation:

Garibaldi has found that the

majority of the people of Sicily do not wish the revo­ lution, and he fears that the Neapolitans are even less enthusiastic; and, being an honest man, he pauses in Tl

L

# supra, p S7B&FZ The Unionists’ laid much stress on liEe method of plebiscite, which, they declared, proved the desire of the various populations of Italy for annexation to Piedmont. The question of Italian plebiscites in general has been treated by Daniel in a despatch of April, 1860. He feels that they are **of little worth considered as true expressions of the popular will.** Government pressure of various kinds nullifies the freedom of the voter. wIt is certain**, says the African minister, **that Napoleon or Cavour can have a popular vote of any description that they may desire; for they have not only a machinery but a material to work on which is unknown in England or in the United States, the people in Prance and Italy being habitually and generally afraid of their govern­ ments, and looking on all opposition to them on such occasions as a rashness and imprudence certain to secure for the individuals indulging in it a long series of ills** (Italy, Vol. VII, Daniel, No# 144, Apr. 17, 1860.)

j

150

'"uncertainty.1 This testimony is important.

The liberal historians

have insisted that the unification of Italy was achieved 2 with the hearty approbation and consent of the people. Daniel tells us that Mthe mass at least in Sicily were either indifferent or on the other side.11

Bolton King

admits that there was a subsequent falling off in the Sicilians* revolutionary fever, but nowhere suggests that 4 they wished to remain under Bourbon rule. Daniel, on the contrary, says that the peasants, ”if they fight at all, 1.

2.

^Through one of his Garibaldi*s intimate friends... I gained the explanation of his unaccustomed vacil­ lation. Garibaldi is an honest man who sincerely believed that the cause he embraced was that of the people. But Tflhen he got to Sicily he found that all the noise was made by a few hundreds; the mass were either indifferent or on the other side. Now that he has finished with Sicily, he’ knows that the Neapolitans are even less with him than were the Sicilians. As for the peasants, they are all un­ questionably against him; they are reactionists; if they fight at all, it will be on the side of the king... Garibaldi knows well that if the government of Naples Is overturned, it must be by his own arms and not by the will of the Neapolitan nation; and in this position he hesitates11 (Italy, Vol. VII, Daniel, No. 161 Aug. 14, 1860). Vide A. Gori, II Risorg. Ital.: ^Prom the cooperation, discordant as ¥o the means, but unanimous as to the supreme final objective,... the new kingdom was b o m n

Cp.'^360.T 3* 4.

L

Daniel, des.clt♦ King, A History of Italian Unity, Vol. II, pp. 145-147. King acTmits the ‘Sicilians */ disinclination for unifi­ cation, but insists that they wished separation from the Bourbon dynasty.

j

151 r*

-L

will be on the aide of the king11.

This testimony may

well give pause to over-enthusiastic apologists for the Italian Revolution* It is fitting to add here the observations of J. R. Chandler, the American minister at Naples at this time. Writing five weeks after Daniel*a despatch of Augpist 14, he notes a similar apathy on the part of the Sicilians towards their liberators*

The unstable character of this

people, he says, is beginning to manifest itself* Garibaldi, who two weeks since was received with cries of joy (a fact evidently unknown to Daniel) begins to hear murmurings of discontent, and to comprehend something of 2 treacherous machinations against himself. Garibaldi, however, succeeded in overcoming his scruples —

and Naples.

But Daniel, in November, 1860,

observes that Naples is far from being contented with her

2.

Daniel, des* cit* Shortly before, Daniel had enlarged on this testimony, with special reference to the Inhabitants of the mainland; lfBut it may well be doubted whether the Neapolitans themselves are dis­ satisfied with the present rule of the Bourbons... Even the warmest advocates of revolution in this king­ dom tpiedmontD seem disposed to admit that If a free popular "vot e was taken at this moment (mid- June, JLBStfl todecide"the question, the people of Naples would retain theIr present dynasty. In a conversation with Garibaldi a short" time previous to his departure I expressed this opinion to him and he reluctantly as­ sented, but added with much simple faith that, fLiberty itself must sometimes be forced oh tne people ■foVtheir future g o o d ^ f r t ’aly,"T6T*‘'VTT/TSaHleTJ----Nb7 T5'3, June“T9', IH6"0). UtaTics inserted^ Italy, Vol. Ill, Two Sicilies, Chandler, No. 66, F g p f : T & r T & m : -----------------

L

J

152 |~

new regime, and, on the other hand, Victor Emmanuel, succeeding to Garibaldi, wis said to be very sick of his T new subjects.” Significantly, perhaps, the new king*s sojourn at Naples, originally intended to last throughout the winter, is to be suddenly terminated within three

weeks.2 Daniel concludes this part of his testimony with a condemnation of the seizure of Sicily from the standpoint of international law.

He declares that he has ”never seen

and scarcely ever heard of an instance in which the ordi­ nary rules of international law were so openly set at 3 naught.” Again, he says that Garibaldis act is one of those which can be justified only by success; judged by the normal law of nations, it is impossible to defend

A few weeks later he is even more explicit.

However

bad the former government may have been, he declares, and however indisputable the right of revolution, it is certain that all international law has been violated by this annex­ ation.

France and England have never ceased to rail

against the United States for its methods of acquiring territory in the New world; yet both these governments have encouraged, connived at, and almost openly assisted the expedition of Garibaldi.

T . Italy, 2. TBTdT

This fact reveals the

Vol. VII, Daniel, No. 178, Nov. 27, 1860.

~

3. Italy, Vol. VII, Daniel, No. 150, June 4, 1860. 4. Italy, Vol. VII, Daniel, No# 151, June 12, 1860. L

J

153 r

insincerity and hypocrisy of their denunciations of "sim­

»

ilar hut much less marked and distinct1* undertakings on the 1 American continent! In regard explicitly to the attack on Naples, Daniel does not say much, apart from what has been already mentioned.

It seems likely, however, that his view of

the subjugation of the mainland would not differ materially from his opinion of the conquest of the island part of the kingdom, since the two acts did not differ essentially in character.

Daniel and his colleague Chandler had a series of comments on another aspect of the Sicilian expedition -— the question of the external aid received by Garibaldi. For several years previous to 1860 the American ministers had suspected that England was actively though surreptitiously interfering in the affairs of the Two Sicilies.

In the Fall of 1856 Daniel had written of a

rather mysterious ’’naval exhibition against Naples11, to be executed by a combined English-French-Sardinian squadron.

He refers to this project as Mthe English plan*1,

and succinctly explains its failure by the fact that it was (ultimately) averse to the French Emperor’s In­ 'S tentions. 1# 2. 3. L

l t a 1 ? ’ Vo1* VXI* Daniel, No. 156, July 3, I860.

Cf. supra, pp. Sardinia, Vol. VI, Daniel, No. 55, Oct. 11, 1856. J

154

Chandler* a reports are even more informing.

In 1858 n

the English and French ministers at Naples had been re­ quested by Ferdinand to leave the kingdom, on account of their highly dubious 3i±alscns with the anti-Bourbon liberals. Chandler admitted that affairs proceeded more quietly in Naples in the absence of diplomats by whom, as it was alleged by the king, all the acts of the government were watched, measured, and subjected to an investigation as 1 annoying as it was humiliating. Shortly afterwards he observes that the presence of Lord Stratford de Redcliffe in Naples for some days past has led to the inquiry whether his visit involved more g than a short sojourn for health. But there is no in­ dication that the English statesman has come with any diplomatic arriere pensee. In May, 1859, Chandler makes an observation that may or may not have some significance.

He notes that the

British retain their large squadron in the Mediterranean near Sicily and that the ninety-ton ship Centurion continues in the harbor of Naples, But, as the crucial moment of June 1860 approaches, it is Daniel who gives us most information.

He is posi­

tively scandalized at the cooperation of the English

T7 2. 3. L

Italy, III, Two Sicilies, Chandler, No.3, Oct,4, 1858. TBTcU---TtaTy, III, *Two;, Sicilies, .Chandler, n.n., May 23, 1859. ’

-J

V

155

r minister at Turin with the designs of Garibaldi*

The

Neapolitan fleet is strong enough to repel Garibaldi — the latter comes alone.

if

But, Daniel is confident that in

the last emergency the English or Sardinian squadrons cruising over the same ground would interfere in some way 2 to the advantage of the expedition. This is precisely what seems to have happened a month later.

'Daniel reports the universal belief of press and

public at Turin that the landing of Garibaldi was effected with the aid of a British frigate, ”which by a singular coincidence was found at the spot of the landing.”

1.

2. 3*

The

”The countenance given to these measures Hi. ©♦, the preparations for Garibaldis expedition against Sicily] by the English minister at Turin, amounting almost to participation in them, is to me very surprising. That he could or would have done so without the direction of his superiors at London is impossible. England has long been on bad terms with Naples* Ihe government there is the constant theme, not only of English newspaper declamation but also of English Parliamentary vituperation. The nation which has hardly finished in India the bloodiest series of executions and massacres that the world has heard of since the fourteenth century is horror-struck to know that the king of Naples imprisons his subjects for political offences. That the Garibaldi expedition should be popular in England can easily be understood! but that a nation which makes such very great pre­ tensions to legality and respect for national right should permit its flag and its passports to cover a step so little in accord with law ia very surprising” (Sardinia, VI, Daniel, n.n., May 10, 1860). Ibid. Sardinia, Vol. VI, Daniel, n. n,, June 4, 1860.

J

L

I

156 f

American minister's remark that the English captain of the frigate, in his official report, makes no mention of this collaboration, does not completely allay our suspi­ cions.

Daniel himself admits, however, that the fact is

not definitely proved, though he is fully satisfied that the agents of the British government are Mmuch and favor­ ably occupied with the expedition."^ Chandler, writing at about the same time from Naples, only partially corroborates Daniel!s statement.

He for­

wards to Washington the official declaration of the Neapo­ litan minister of Foreign Affairs, who asserts that the firing of the Neapolitan vessels was suspended to enable the English officers to get on board their own ships. Chandler says that it is generally agreed in Naples that the English are concerned in the movement against Sicily, but he himself cannot finally decide the question of the o extent of English collaboration. T~.

I

wIt is said that Garibaldirs vessels were chased by the Neapolitan fleet and overtaken by it when he reached the shore. The Neapolitansoopend fire and would have without doubt destroyed the greater part of the little force in a short time, had not an English frigate, which by a singular coincidence was found at the spot of the landing, sent word to the Neapolitan commander that some of its officers had visited .the shore that morning and that he must cease firing until they came aboard; declaring that, trrthe English frigate.. .would fire on him if he continued action. The Neapolitans ceased firing, the English officers remained on shore for two hours, and, in the meanwhile, Garibaldi got both men and munitions out of danger. I give this startling statement as it is universally believed and circulated here, as has been published without contradiction in all the Sardinian press, and as it has been even written in the correspondence of the London Times...w (ibid.) j Italy, III,-Two Sicilies, Chandler, No. 45, May 15, 1860.

157 In his next despatch Chandler adds the detail of the n Neapolitan ship*s firing on the buildings of the English firm of woodhouse at the point of Garibaldi*s landing*

He

tells also of the English efforts to "remove from the public mind the impression that their ships were there purposely to aid the Garibaldians".’*' A few days later he encloses a note from the Neapolitan Foreign Minister, ap­ parently absolving the British from all collusion, direct or indirect, with Garibaldi*

The Foreign Minister says

that his note is occasioned by the protests of the British against what they claimed was an "implication" against them in his previous letter addressed to the diplomatic 2 corps. What really happened is thus left in some obscurity* The psychology of the situation, and the character of Anglo-Neapolitan relations for some years preceding, might lead one to doubt the sincerity of the earnest protests of the British, and to rely on the "universal opinion" at Turin, as reported by Daniel* position to knowl

Turin was certainly in a

We are all the more inclined to this

when we read a few years later the letter of an American ship captain, De Bohan, suggesting unmistakably American

1* 2.

Italy, III, Two Sicilies, Chandler,No*45, May 15,1860. Italy, III, Two Sicilies, Chandler,No.48, May 29,1860*

158

^participation in the Sicilian events of I860,'*'

n

Such are the highlights of the testimony of the American ministers on the movement of 1859-1860•

From

their observations one fact, at least, can be derived: the 1,

L

This letter was written in 1868 to George P. Marsh, at that time American minister to the Kingdom of Italy. Be Rohan is obviously seeking remuneration for services rendered to the Italian cause in 1860, and has ap­ parently been unable to collect. Marsh, on good di­ plomatic principles, has shown himself cool towards the Captain1s claims, and, as the letter implies, has even reprimanded his countryman for the latterfs irregular action in support of the Garibaldi expedition. Some parts of De Rohan*s communication are worth quoting: **... it is not consistent with... my self-respect for me to remain silent under the rebuke you... apply to me when you virtually charge me with... Piracy on the high seas... and ♦hostile operations against a power then fin I860] at peace with my own country*.. What I really did do, is a matter which I have carefully avoid­ ed alluding to in my letters to you... It is not always well to let in light upon such left handed transactions as almost every government at times becomes a party to, -- a principle that is tacitly assented to in the quiet method of dealing satisfactorily with the agents employ­ ed. When, however, ingratitude is meted out in sole return for such services as I have at the risk of my life rendered In 1860-61 to the government of this country [i.e. Italy] services that are sufficiently historical,... then, sir, one must needs be more or less than a saint to longer forbear** (Italy, Vol. XII, Marsh, No. 222, Aug. 2, 1868,enclosure dated •Florence, May 20,. Rohan to Marsh.) The historical basis for the Captain* s claims appears in the course of this despatch of Mr* Marsh: w... a ship under the American flag, the'Charles and Jane, left Genoa in June 1860, and having been captured by a Neapolitan cruiser, was, with her tug, taken to Gaeta, a prisoner. She had on board 800 Garibaldian troops armed and in command of a Piedmontese officer, who admitted that she was bound to Sicily to aid the revolution there, against a power then at peace with the American government. The United States minister at Naples Chandler obtained the release of ships, men, and. ;arms, and those same men were shortly after present at the'battle of Milazzo” (Marsh, des. cit.)

j

159

revolution was a ^managed11 and synthetic one, and not a spontaneous rising of a people*

This, perhaps, was the

only way in which it could have been effected; in which case we have a loss for political idealism and a gain in experience for political pragmatism*

To the American

ministers, however, who watched the process, the spectacle seems to have been somewhat disillusioning*

They were,

perhaps, too much prepossessed with the moral dignity and primitive purity of their own Revolution of 1776.

They

found the Italian Lexingtons and Bunker Hills and Consti­ tutional Congresses unfamiliar, and somewhat disedifying*

L

j

160 *1

r NOTES TO CHAPTER FIVE Note One Centralization**, complains Perez (La Centralizzazione, p.5) **makes a tabula rasaof all the ancient organic instT^ tutions of a State, wounds the social body in all its organs, and resolves them into their dissociated atomic parts11. As to the alleged economic benefits from central­ ization, he contrasts the great material progress of Languedoc (under purely local government) with the distinctly inferior advance of the French provinces under the later centralized rule of the Empire (ibid., pp. 61-63). Minghetti, Farini, and even Cavour, on the very eve of the 1860 plebiscites, recom­ mended centralizzazione politica but de­ cent ralizzazlone amministrativa (ibid•, p. 88). The author cannot understand why wthe thing which appeared good and neces­ sary in October of 1860 ceased there­ after to be so, or even to be spoken oftf (ibid., p. 89). Mazzini said; ttThe unity of Italy is not centralization. They are two things essentially diverse, the fusion of which confounds and gives the lie to our basic ideals1* (Mazzini, Lettres sur le present et l favenir de 1 1Itaiie, quoted in Perez,

■3p.-aT7rp.~W75----

Perez quotes with approval the words of his contemporary, Elias Regnault: l*La tactique des partisans de l ’absolutisme central consiste surtout a faire la con­ fusion entre l fUnite et la Centralisation...n (Regnault, La Province, Paris, 1861, p.61, in Perez op. cit., p. i.) The thesis of La Centralizzazione is summarized in the foTlowing passagej nA false condition is created by political centralization; instead of binding together in a dynamic whole the living and organic forces of those great moral entities that comprise national political unity, the

centralizers wish to enervate and even to extinguish these organic forces by means of an administrative fusion** (ibid., p. 5).

Note Two The Neapolitan government, on the eve of its dissolution, had established a tariff of such liberal character as to approximate a proclamation of free trade! In an editorial of Oct. 11, 1860, the London Daily News described this tariff as being **eminently calculated to strengthen and establish the spirit of freedom in that long-misgoverned land**. The liberal journal expresses its surprise that, **by virtue of three royal decrees issued successively on the 1st and 15th of March and 1st of May last, the whole body of import duties in the Two Sicilies was re­ modelled after the manner of Peel and Glad­ stone**. With unconscious irony the editor­ ial concludes with these words: *we only hope that when the work of annexation, shall have been completed, Piedmont will adopt the new commercial maxims of Naples, Instead of extending the sphere of her own, which up to the present time are in some respects hardly as liberal’1.

Note Three On the question of Italian plebiscites, even Lord John Russell had his scruples. In January 1860 he sent to the English minister at Turin an instruction, from which some extracts follow: **I have not taken official notice of the decrees which you have trans­ mitted to me, announcing the annexation... to the Italian State of Naples, Sicily, Umbria, and the Marches. In reality the vote by universal suffrage that transpired in those kingdoms and provinces seems to His Majesty’s Government to have little value. Such votes are nothing but a formality that follows an act of popular insurrection or a fortunate invasion, or are the consequence of negoti­ ations, and of themselves do not signify an independent exercise of the will of the

nation in whose name they are held..* You may read this despatch to the Count de Cavour, and, if he wishes it, you may leave him a copy1* (Great Britain. Parliament. Sessional Papers, Vol. LXVII (Nov. 1859-Mar. lg“ 6‘ 07, --further correspondence respecting the affairs of Italy, p. 42.)

163

CHAPTER SIX The New Kingdom - 1860 to 1870 Italy had now won her political unification.

flThe

united Italyw, says Bolton King, ”... had suddenly become a fact, a fact that even the apathetic multitude had hailed with delight, and that made the reactionaries and the auto­ nomists forget their narrow ideals in the pride of being 1 citizens of a great nation1*. But there were still some acute problems awaiting solution, the chief, perhaps, of these being the task of reconciling the various localities to the new regime. t

It was the South which provided most of the worry. ftTo harmonize North and South ”, admitted Cavour, nis harder 2 than fighting Austria or struggling with Rome**. In Naples and Sicily was widespread lawlessness and unrest, due, according to the Unionists, to the misgovernment so long inflicted upon the country by the corrupt Bourbon regime. The Lombards and Tuscans, too, were sustaining with ill grace the submergence of their own laws by the Piedmontese Statuto and legal code; and Rattazzifs premature appli­ cation of the Piedmontese administrative methods into Lombardy was causing considerable discontent in that section. Two divergent programs were being debated at Turin -1. Bolton King, A History of Italian Unity, 1814-1871 (4th impression) 2 vols., London, 1934, Vol. II, p . 182. 2* Ibid.t Vol. II, p. 183. 3. Ibid, Vol. II, pp. 191-192

164 r

that of Parini and Minghetti, which would have conceded a

"8

large degree of regional autonomy throughout the Kingdom, and the highly centralized policy of Cavour*

The Piedmont­

ese premier, after almost yielding to the Parini-Minghetti plan, decided definitely in December 1860 in favor of the strictly unitary policy, and strong administrators like Crispi and Bertani were sent to the South to expedite the process of fusion. The Roman problem was equally as pressing, for, in the words of Ricasoli, llWithout Rome Italy is nothing; for 1 Venice we must wait, for Rome we cannot wait”. But the Pope and his supporters had not unnaturally set their face intransigently against what they considered a blatant invasion of their sovereign rights to the capital of Christendom; and the statesmen of the New Italy were forced to seek some means of attaining their aim without arousing too much opposition from the Clericals and with­ out forfeiting the very necessary friendship of Napoleon. The Roman problem, in fact, involved much more than the mere possession of the Papal City.

The whole question

of the relations of the State to the Church was clamor­ ing for solution; and the politicians were determined that, whatever the solution would be, it must include the strict subordination of the Church to the civil power. Cavour*s ^Free church in a Free Statew plan was dead after

1. L

Ibid., Vol. II, p. 199. J

165 r-

”1

mid-1861*

From that time on, the objective of the rulers

of Italy was to establish their effective control over the Church by means

of a cautious but persistent tactic of

infiltration of the civil power into the realm of the 1 Church’s public activity. All this constituted the darker side of the picture, but there were brighter lights. the Spring of 1859.

Much had been done since

The new Kingdom was

being built.

Men were young, and hopeful, and aggressive, and there were some not unworthy successors of Cavour. The American minister George Perkins Marsh, assuming his post at Turin in March 1861, is very favorably impressed. The general tenor, of his observations during his first three years in Italy might be summed up as follows:

the

task of fusing the various localities into a national whole is progressing successfully; unification has brought all kinds of benefits to the Italian people; the future This tactic must not be so vehement as to frighten Napoleon and yet not so mild as to fail of its aim. Napoleon, in 1860, seemed willing to withdraw his troops from Rome if Cavour would promise not to take the city by force, but allow the population of the Papal territory to decide freely their future status. This was 'the ostensible basis of Franco-Italian relations until 1871. Ricasoli, succeeding Cavour as premier in June, 1861, sought to stimulate the somewhat lagging pace of the Roman *peaceful revolu** tion.1*

L

J

166

prospect

is most promising.

1

He remarks, as one of the most encouraging signs for the future, the enthusiastic support received by the new government from the peasantry in every part of the penin2 sula. In all classes (except that of the stubborn Cleri­ cals) the sense of nationality is as thoroughly developed and as consciously felt as in any European race.

No one

can question the resolution or the ability of the Italian people to accomplish that unity which, as a counter poise to the overweening weight of the French and Germanic elements in Europe, will be as great a blessing to the 3 general interests of the continent as to themselves; In 1864 the American minister is apparently of the same opinion.

Italy is a large harmonious family, and

even the South is distinguishing itself by whole-hearted T~

viae passimY ~ Italy, Vol. X, Marsh (Apr. 5, 1861 Dec. 1, 1863.) A typical extract: !,Upon the whole, then, Italy seems to me to be now eminently the country of progress, and I believe the establishment of its political unity, which will be consummated by the recovery of the capital from the obscene birds of night that have so long hovered there, will be fol­ lowed by an intellectual activity and productivity which will leave even the mental achievements of m o d e m Germany behind itn (Italy, Vol. X, Marsh, n.n., Sept. 4, 1861.) This passage is Important also as showing Marsh* s lack of friendliness towards the papal party, an attitude which greatly increases the value of his subsequent testimony in defence of the papal case. 2* Italy, Vol. X, Marsh, No. 28, Oct. 28, 1861. 3. Italy, Vol. X, Marsh, No. 53, Oct. 20, 1862.

L

J

167 -j devotion to the Government •*

"

To this early testimony of Marsh there attaches a great importance, in view of the change in his views which is soon to come#

His reactions from 1861 to 1864 certainly

reveal him as most willing to see the good points of the new order; and his uncomplimentary remarks concerning the Papal and' Clerical regime show him to be anything but prejudiced in favor of the latter*

His gradual modifi­

cation of his views, therefore, from mid-1864 onward, is all the more worthy of careful study* In the very despatch mentioned immediately above, there is a slightly ominous note.

It Is not to be denied,

he admits, that there is much dissatisfaction with the policy of the government in many parts of Italy; and po­ litical agitators, ^Romish**, Bourbon, and Mazzinian, are constantly putting the question, What has Italy gained by

1#

L

wThere is no question that the belief in a community of interests, the consciousness of a national life, and the conviction that immense advantages to the whole Italian people have already resulted from the gathering of the different provinces under one po­ litical organization, are strong and rapidly grow­ ing sentiments throughout the peninsula* This, I have reason to believe, is scarcely less true of Naples than of the rest of the Kingdom* Distracted as the rural districts of Italy are by brigandage and priestly and political intrigues, the recent progress of the city of Naples, and of all the most populous part of the adjacent provinces In material prosperity, in intelligence,in public order and respect for law, ha3 been extremely rapid, and that population seems hardly less attached to the new government than any others of its subjects** (Italy, Vol. XI, Marsh, No, 102, Sept. 19, 1864.) j

168

her pretended unity? It must be recalled,: in fairness to Marsh, that his final conclusion in this despatch is that unification is being successfully accomplished#

But the disquieting

note of the criticism just quoted arouses our interest; and the change in Marsh1s sentiments begins to be even more marked three years later* H© feels that the surrender of the Transalpine provinces and 6f nice in 1860, and the convention of 1864, have destroyed the hold of the Savoyard dynasty on the attachment of the Piedmontese people#

The traditions of

Venetia and Tuscany are republican; and the king and his government have acquired no popularity in the Two Si­ cilies or in the other territories which have been added to Piedmont#

Royalty, therefore, as represented by Victor

Emmanuel and his sons, has little moral strength in Italy# If the king is to retain his throne after a political revolution, he will owe his safety to the support of 2 foreign powers and influences. This is a distinct shift of opinion on the part of the American minister, and it becomes increasingly marked in his subsequent observations. About a year and a half after the despatch just quoted, 1#

Italy, Vol# XI, Marsh, No, 102, Sept. 19, 1864, There had heen a faint foreshadowing of this idea in one of the laudatory despatches of two years before: w... and though Naples and Sicily may possibly, for the time, be lost to the House of Savoy... ^(Italy, Vol, X Marsh, No. 53, Oct. 20, 1862. 2. Italy, Vol. XI, M^rsh, No. 174, Apr. 10, 1867.

169 r ”i Marsh reports a conversation which he has had with General Menabrea.

The latter complained that although the po­

litical unity of all the Italian states was now an ac­ complished fact, yet their administrative unification was not altogether complete, and therefore the government could not display the necessary energy, “since it did not possess the moral support which the possession of material strength 1 supplies**. These last words are the Generals, as quoted by Marsh.

The Italian leader seems to be hinting del­

icately that the people1s loyalty required an occasional stimulus from the governments coercive powers* In the Spring of 1869 Marsh reports a revolutionary out­ break at Milan.

Although he depreciates its political sig­

nificance, yet he admits that the unpopularity of the governments tax methods might seem to justify the appre­ hension that any movement supported by the name of Mazzini 2 would produce a widespread agitation. Again, in the Spring of 1870, a revolt occurs at Pavia, involving part of the Army.

Marsh discounts the movements

political importance, but concedes that it is alarming as one of the too numerous facts which show a great, and, he fears, increasing demoralization among the masses.^ By May of 1870 the American ministers fears are still unallayed. Tl

2* 3.

L

He regrets to announce that disturbances of the

Italy, Vol. XIII, Marsh , No. 287, May 20, 1870. T5T3T Italy, Vol. XIII, Marsh, cipher portion, No. 299, Aug. 26, 1870. J

170

r

i

public peace, of the same character as those to which he has alluded in former despatches, have been renewed in various parts of Italy.

The movements are generally repre­

sented as being of a political nature, and as instigated by republican agitators. This last-mentioned despatch is an example of the transition state of Marsh*s opinions at this time.

He is

not yet convinced that the disturbances indicate any serious lack of popular devotion to the government, and is inclined to blame them rather on the misrule of the former regimes. But he admits that the flwant of a sound public sentiment in respect to crimes and punishments** will, if not correct­ ed, ultimately prove most dangerous to the political and 2 social institutions of the country*1. Three months later his pessimism has taken on more sombre color.

He notes

that the king is fearing a revolution in his kingdom, and he believes that, in the event of the downfall of the French Empire, there is very little doubt that a serious effort will be made to overthrow the monarchy in Italy.

What were the possible reasons for this striking lack of unity between the government and large sections of the people? One reason may have been the weakness of the govern­ ment itself. Rattazzi, succeeding Hicasoli as premier in

T:— Italy"; ToTrY'IlT,"¥afsir; Wo'.nSBTlT&y 21T," W 0 “.----2. T5T3T 3. L

Italy, Vol. XIII, Marsh, cipher portion, Ho# 299, Aug. 26, 1870. J

171

r May

”i

1862, had been unable to control the enthusiastic

violence of Garibaldi, who ran a brilliant, if finally unsuccessful course

in the South in an apparent effort to

re-stage the triumphs of 1859-60*

Although General

Cialdini vindicated the cause of law and order at Aspromonte, it was a graceless conquest which brought more glory and sympathy to the downcast Garibaldi than to the State; and Rattazzi’s ministry fell before a popular opposition which felt that the Government had bungled the whole affair. Then, too, the Government, having accomplished the political unity of Italy, seemed strangely unable to achieve unity within its own ranks.

Marsh wrote in the summer of

1862 that the present ministry of Rattazzi was a ministry which possessed the confidence of no party, and was toler­ ated, not supported, by any,'*' The passage gives a strong hint — reported by Marsh —

to be frequently

of a defect from which the new regime

never fully succeeded in freeing itself, and which must have weakened the people’s confidence in their rulers#

The

Government of Italy never was able to establish that indis­ pensable requisite for a free state — ministerial system.

a reasonably stable

The weak and ephemeral character of

the Italian ministries is portrayed strikingly in Marsh’s Italy, Vol. X, Marsh, h*n*, July 4, 1862.

L

J

172

despatches over a period of more than twenty years. Cabinet succeeds cabinet at short Intervals.

1

“i

No sooner is

the formation of a new cabinet announced than we are inform­ ed, at least frequently, by Marsh that its parliamentary support is weak, and that it is not expected to endure long# This is the stuff out of which parliamentary states have always drawn their suicide potion#

It is the surest symptom

of that psycopathic condition so fatal to constitutional government —

an overdose of blocs*

It seriously weakened

the new State, and the people must have perceived this fact, and felt a corresponding decrease of confidence in their chiefs# It might be argued that the Italian electorate was not of sufficient aptitude to provide itself with a better government.

In 1866 Marsh makes the rather discouraging

observation that only one-fifth of the Italian population 2 can read or write. Of the Army he says that the privates are recruited from provinces discordant in dialect, in habits of rural and industrial life, and in the popular notions of the relations between the government and the people, and are often but slightly connected by ties of common interest#

The conscripts, especially those from

southern Italy, are in large proportion too devoid of instruction and of all social training to be prepared for the proper exercise of the civil and political rights and 1* Vide infra, pp. 2# Italy, Vol# XI, Marsh, No# 152, Aug# 11, 1866# 3# Italy, Vol. XII,Marsh, No. 236, Nov* 24, 1868. L

173 p and functions which belong to the citizens of a repre­ sentative government.*^



We wonder whether the same

stricture might not have been passed on the Italian elec­ torate as a whole#

Indeed the people’s lack of training in the complicated science of self-government is strongly suggested by Marsh’s description of the election of members for the Chamber of Deputies in the Pall of 1870. interest —

The event excited very little

Marsh adds that this is the usual fate of

elections in Italy —

and the cases were very numerous #iere

less than one-third of the registered voters presented their ballots.

In Florence not a third of the legal voters appear­

ed at the polls, in any one of the four electoral districts of the city#

Consequently, as by the electoral law the

successful candidate had to receive not only a majority but more than one-third of the whole number of votes to which the districts were entitled, no elections were effect­ ed in that city.

The real explanation, Marsh concludes, is

that the Italians have not yet learned habitually to con­ sider the pational legislature as a coordinate branch of the government.

The mass of the electors look to the ministry

as the embodiment of the state and the dictator of the national policy, and forget that the control of the execu­ tive by the legislative power is of the essence of

1. Italy, Vol. XII, Marsh, No. 236, Nov. 24, 1868.

L

j

174 r~

representative government.

1

n

The governments weakness was revealed typically early in 1863, when the Right party was split by a serious, dis­ sension caused by the conflict in policy between the regionalists (the Qonsorteria) and the Piedmontese or "centrali­ zing” group.

To complicate matters still more, the Cabinet

(Minghetti being premier) joined the regionalists in their attack on the "strict unification” program which had been dominant since mid-1861; and the bewildered Italian people might well wonder what the aims of the Government really were.

The atmosphere was scarcely improved by the con­

tinued raising up by the Government of new enemies against itself, especially by the rigorous anti-Church campaign which occasioned the bitter Papal Syllabus of 1864,

The

Government’s answer to this document was a renewed attempt to confiscate more convents and monasteries in 1866-67; the attempt failed because of strong opposition in the Senate, and revealed the Ministryfs weakness anew. More specifically, the reasons for the people’s dis­ satisfaction with their rulers was the failure of the latter T7

2. l_

Italy, Vol. XIII, Marsh, No. 323, Nov, 23, 1870, The liberals have usually claimed that the only means of teaching the people how to rule themselves is to allow them to rule themselves. Self-government can be learned only by its practice. This argument ignores the fact that there is an irreducible minimum of know­ ledge required for any higher education, and it is far from clear that the Italian people possessed this pre­ requisite . For internal politics of Italy at this period vide tiie Carteggio tra Marco Minghetti e Giuseppe Pasolini, (ed, Guido Pasolini] 4~vols., Turin, 1924-30, a veri- J table compendium of the history of the Right.

175

rto handle adequately one of the State’s chief problems, -the problem of administering the localities and provinces* This question was chiefly one of economics, and the impasse may be expressed thus: the exigencies of establish­ ing a highly centralized government demanded the imposition of heavy taxes of various kinds on the provincial popu­ lations, and the government’s agrarian policy involved a radical reorganization of the system of land tenure*

Both

these necessities were highly unwelcome to the inhabi­ tants of the rural districts*

The Government was between

two fires: it must maintain its financial stability and it must carry through its program of land reapportionment, but both these objectives involved the cooling of pop­ ular loyalty to the State* Marsh’s first extended reference to taxation appears in a despatch of January 1868*

Prince Carignan, acting as

Regent for the King (who was leading his troops in the Austrian war) was invested by Parliament with full powers to launch a ’’national” loan, which, as Marsh remarks sig­ nificantly, was popularly called a ”forced loan”.

The

American observes that this seems to have been a usomewhat anomalous proceeding, the constitutionality of which, however, is, I believe, admitted by Italian jurists”

We

are given no important details concerning the character of this tax, but the manner in which it came into being

1* L

Italy* Vol. XII, Marsh, Wo. 200, Jan. 20, 1868. J

176 r

evidently conflicted with Marsh* s American constitutional

prepossessions*

It may not be too much to surmise that it

occasioned an analogous reaction in the minds of many Italians. Not until a few months later does Marsh give us a really vivid picture of the tax methods of the new regime* In the Spring of 1868 the Government imposed a tax on grist, i. e*, milled grain, the most common staple of the poorer classes, the basic ingredient of bread*

This

measure, says the American minister, involves the im­ position of new burdens on an already over-taxed people, 1 and has occasioned some manifestations of discontent. He explains that the tax is *designed expressly to compel contributions from classes whose utter poverty generally secures them from the exactions of the tax gatherer.1* Six months later he describes in greater detail the nature of this levy and the results -which it produced.

The tax

on grist, he says, has produced some of the effects antici­ pated by its opponents, the enforcement of the law imposing it is resisted by the populace in many places, and the government is resorting to military force to put down the 3 disturbance... While the American minister denies that there is any considerable political significance to these disturbances, nevertheless, he says, the government is seriously anxious

L

Tl

Italy, Vol. XII, Marsh, No. 210, May I6,“1W8,;

2.

T5T H 7

3.

Italy, Vol. XII, Marsh, No. 239, Jan. 6, 1869.

" J

177 ^as to the results, and is reported to have made large concessions to the independent and spirited populations of Piedmont and Lombardy,

In the Romagna the tax is being

enforced by f,measures which do not fall much short of martial law.11 Marsh reaffirms his belief that resistance to the law has not yet assumed a political aspect, but he fears that it will do much to weaken the moral influence of the government, to t a o m l i z e the people, and to dispose them to listen to revolutionary agitators.

2

All this is decidedly revealing, and is quite in contrast to the American minister*s optimistic reflections of a few years before.

There is presented here no picture

of an Italy united in a communion of national sentiment and loyally devoted to the government.

Rather, the govern­

ment appears to be losing rapidly the affections of its subjects.

The following description of the grist tax

makes clear why this should be so:

x:

ItaTyT 'VoT."XrI, HarSETTTff.*"239, Jan . 6,'T88'g.------

2, iMi;

L

J

178 The tax on grist#•• appears to me highly impolitic, unjust, and oppressive, its object being, like that of the octroi duty at the city gates, to spare the rich by extorting a contribution from those who have no property to tax, and whose daily earnings are scarcely sufficient" to furnish them with the barest necessaries of life.l It is not surprising that the lower classes of Italy should lack something of enthusiasm for the new regime which imposed such burdens upon them#

The governments land policy, also, has proved to be unpopular with the peasants and lower borghesia# With the double aim of breaking the feudal monopo­ lies

especially that of the Clericals —

and of modern­

izing the conditions of tenure, the State had, in 1860, destroyed the large holdings and distributed them in small portions among what, it was hoped, would be a new progressive class of small owners*

The results, how­

ever, belied the anticipations of the statesmen.

In the

first place, the new owners found, to their dismay, that their new status of free proprietorship brought them far

1*

L

Italy, Vol. XII, Marsh, No. 239, Jan. 6, 1869. »In Italy**, the same despatch continues, wthe poor man can afford little or no animal food, and he subsists almost exclusively on various preparations of meal and flour — for even the chestnut which consti­ tutes the staple aliment of a large proportion of the peasantry in central Italy is always ground and he, of course, consumes a larger quantity of bread stuffs than the rich, who can vary his diet widely.** (ibid.)

J

179

HLess economic advantage than did their former status of tenantships

"1

In the second place there was the unexpected

fact that the peasants in many localities were unwilling to receive their land portion precisely because it had been confiscated from the clergy.

o

Such, on Marsh1s testimony, was the general character of the governments financial and agrarian administration 1*

ttThere is, especially in Tuscany, another considera­ tion which operates with some force to repress the ambition of landholding among the laboring class. Farming lands are [i. e., have been in the p a s Q almost universally xet upon shares and upon terms so favorable to the cultivator that he would in general be a loser by exchanging tenantship for proprietor­ ship. The leases under the old tenant system are indeed always for a single year, and the landlord can dismiss his tenant by a notice given in the autumn; but the peasant finds it for his interest to give satisfaction to the proprietor, and changes are by no means frequent. Indeed, several cases have been mentioned to me where peasant families have held the same farm, upon annual lettings, for four or five centuriesn (Italy, XI, Marsh, Wo. 187, Aug. 16, 1867 j #

2#

L

tfIn the Alpine and northern Apennine regions, the rural population is comparatively independent of the clergy, and there is good reason to believe that the peasantry will largely avail themselves of the opportunity of escaping from the condition of tenants and becoming landowners. But in Tuscany... and in Sicily, it is very doubtful whether many of them will venture to incur the animadversion of the church by appropriating to their private use lands long set apart for the benefit of the priesthood*1 (Italy, Vol. XI, Marsh, Wo. 187, Aug. 16, 1867.) Incldentally, it is pertinent to ask the question, would clerical influence be still so operative if it was not based on a yet-enduring affection of the people for the clergy?

J

*~in the localities.

It seems safe to surmise that the

defects of that administration go far to explain the popu­ lar dissatisfaction remarked by the American minister in the later years of the fsixties. There had been no lack of prophets foretelling these results.

Federalists like Proudhon, Perez, Regnault, and

Chevillard, had pointed out the evils of centralization as exemplified in France, and had warned the Italians that A similar form of government would bring the same disadvantages to the peninsula.

The prophets were being

vindicated by the grumblings and complaints in the provinces of the South, the Center, and the North.

1

Another serious error of the government grew out of its relations with France. The Italian statesmen were far too subservient to Napoleon III.

The more intelligent of the people could

hardly view with complacency the situation described by Marsh as a wmoral conquest, or, more properly, the fasci­ nation, of the king and his leading advisers by the magic of the Empire.**2

This enthrallment, says the American

minister, is so complete that the Italian statesmen may 1.

2.

Vide the following French writers against political 'centralization: P.-J. Proudhon, La federation et 1*unite en Italie, nouvelle ed •,~T?aris , 18627 Elias Regnault, La Province, ce qu! elle est; ce qu* elle doit etre ,~Tarla. 1861. Jules Chevillard, Ve La division administrative de la France, et de la Centralisation, Paris, 1862. " Italy, Vol. XI, Marsh, No. 102, Sept. 19, 1864.

181 ^be regarded as ready to submit to any humiliation which

”1

Napoleon may choose to inflict upon them. So far as they are concerned, he may dictate his terms as arrogantly and as regardless of the honor and interests of Italy as he did at Villafranca.^ This dependence on Prance, was, of course, due large­ ly to the necessities arising out of the Roman Question. After the failure of Cavourfs wFree Church in a Free State** plan in 1861, the directors of Italian policy had deter­ mined to accomplish by more gradual and less openly aggress­ ive measures their vitally important objectives: seizure of the city of Rome and effective subordination of the Church to the State.

For the success of this double aim

the friendship, or at least the neutrality of France was required; and Napoleon, who had his Catholic subjects to satisfy, had to be managed, conciliated, and bargained with by the Italians, before he would withdraw his obsta­ cles to the Government1s Church program. Under such a necessity, the Italian leaders would be inevitably led into making undignified concessions to French suggestions on other subjects of policy, as well. 1. Italy, Vol. XI,Marsh, No. 102, S e p t . 19, 1864. Vide also Italy, Vol. X, Marsh, No. 39, Mar. 10, 1862; tfThere can be no doubt that French influence has made itself felt in the composition of the new cabinet”. The general point is emphasized in many despatches of Italy, vol. .X. covering the period from April 3, 1861 to December 1, 1863.

L

J

182 r

Perhaps the climax of Italian subserviency to Prance "1

was reached with the September Convention of 1864*

This

agreement stipulated the withdrawal of the French troops from Rome within three years, in exchange for the Italian Government’s pledge not to invade the Papal territory and to occupy Rome, if at all, only after a free vote of the inhabitants. This was, in effect, to wrest from the Italian Govern­ ment the promise that it would never seize Rome by force* Considering the state of Italian feeling in the ’sixties, to give such a promise was either rank perjury or sheer treason*

It was, rather, the former, and it forced the

Government to make concessions to the Emperor on further points even of internal policy during the next few years, in order to menager his friendship and lull his suspicions *i as to the 1864 pledge. Marsh’s charge d ’affaires, J* Clay, regarded the S©ptember Convention as an arrangement which ’’insulates the government from the spontaneous forces of the nation 2 and perpetuates a menace of French intervention”. Throughout the ’sixties Marsh notes the evidences of the 1.

2*

L

3he Government, having made to an indispensable friend a promise which it knew it must break, was obliged, in order to retain the indispensable friend, to yield to him on almost all other Issues arising during the subsequent years. Italy, Vol* XI, J. Clay, n.n. Sept. 29, 1867.

J

183 ^Italian Governments enfeoffment to Prance.

In June 1865

he remarks that the government is awaiting instructions from Paris as to the next step to be taken in regard to Rome."*"

A few months later General La Marmora is retained

as premier even though his parliamentary backing is gone. Marsh thinks the reason for the Generals continuance in office is the fact that Napoleon wishes such a con2 tinuance. In the Spring of 1867 Marsh speaks of the series of ministries which have ’’reduced Italy to the abject condition of a dependency of Prance.’*

And (if

we may be pemitted a glance forward) he writes in 1881 that Italy, until the downfall of Napoleon, was practical4 ly ruled by that sovereign. T: 2. 3.

L_

rFaTy,~Vol. XI,— MarshT''¥o T T S I “ 3rune 5/'TBSF:------Italy, Vol. XI, Marsh, No. 130, Dec. 31,1865. Italy, Vol. XI, Marsh, No. 174, Apr. 10,1867. Z 5 H Z » Vol. XIX, Marsh, No. 1001, Dec. 21, 1881. On this topic vide: Matteo Mazziotti, Napol^one III e 1* Italia, studio historico, Milan, 192B1 This work:* takes the view that Napoleon’s a.t:ti!.thde towards Italian independence was an altruistic and, for the most part, a disinterested one. A more realistic presentation of the Emperor’s politique towards Italy is: Pietro Silva, La Politics del Napol^one III in Italia, Milan, 1927. The benefits of the French alliance, and the.necessity of Italian adherence to it even at the cost of some sacrifice of freedom of action are explained in; Paul Matter, Cavour et 1 ’unite italienne, 3 vols., Paris, 1922-1927, and Maurice Paldogue, Un grand re'aliste; Cavour, Paris, 1926. For internal politics of Kingdom of Italy at this period vide s G. Arangio-Ruiz, Storia costituzionale del regno d ’Italia 1848-1898, Florence, 1898, and S. Cilibrizzi, iStoria “parlamentare politica e diplomatica d ’Italia da Novara a Vittorio Veneto, 4 viols*, Milan, 1923-1930.

J

184 r

The Government erred also, it would seem, in its

”1

solution of the problem of Venetia# The acquisition of this province had always been an objective of the new regime, but the question had been allowed to slumber until more pressing problems were addressed#

From 1865 onward, however, the La Marmora

cabinet entered upon the perilous flirtation with Prussia with the aim of securing Bismarck1s aid in securing the coveted territory#/*’ Marsh sympathized with the Italian desire for Venetia, and agreed that the annexation of the province was necessary for the rounding off of the new Kingdom# But he foresaw also the dangers of the specific method adopt­ ed by the Government for attaining its objective# In the first place, Venetia could be obtained only by war, and, **Italy is unprepared for war, and a new struggle with Austria would prove a dangerous, if not a fatal 2 experiment*1* The maintenance of a large standing army in expectation of the outbreak of hostilities was adding to the Governments already serious financial

TI

l

Consult, in regard to Austrian and Prussian policy at this period: H# Ritter von Srbik, Quellen zur Deutsche Politik Osterrelchs, 1859-1866, 5 vols *, (only one published) Oldenburg and Berlin, 1935* Die Auswartige Politik Preussens, 1858-1871# Diplomat is cheAktenstucke, (ed #' Rudolf Ibbeken) OTd^nburg7~T93^3¥7~IS~vols# (six published). R# Stadelmann, Das Jahr 1865 und das Problem von Bismarck»s D e u t s c K e F T o I T t T k , " l u n T 5 K ----C.W. Clark, Franz Joseph and Bismarck. The Diplomacy of Austria before the w a r of 1866, Cambridge, 1934. 2# Italy, Vol. X, Marsh, No* 39, Mar. 10, 1862#

j

185 riituation.^

”1

Furthermore, the acquisition of Venetia by the aid of Prussia would necessarily involve making compensations to France,

The Emperor was fully aware that Bismarck was

offering his help to Italy for no altruistic reasons.

The

completion of Italian unification was a further step ahead for the unification of Germany.

And while Napoleon —

quite blindly, as the events of 1870 proved —

was willing

to allow Prussia to be thus strengthened, he would insist also on new guarantees for himself in return for the 2 aggrandizement of his neighbor. What would the Emperor demand as the price of his benevolent neutrality in the war against Austria?

We

might surmise that he would insist on securing from Prussia acquiescence for some extensions of his frontier on the Bhine, and, from Italy, a still further voice in Italian 1. 2*

L

Italy, XI, Marsh, No# 83, Feb. 2, 1864. TheAmerican minister at Paris reported as follows in 1866s MThat France will have her compensation sooner or later in the final peace or under a future treaty I have no doubt. Without some tolerably satisfactory assurance upon that point the war would have been prevented, an easy thing for France to have managed... The more completely, however, France shall appear to have suffered by the changes wrought by the war, the more easy will it be for those *rectifications1 to be conceded to France, which, in my opinion, were,intend­ ed in advance to be the price of her forbearance... (France, Vol. 61, John Bigelow, No. 351, Aug. 3,, 1866. Marsh, too, is sure that La Marmora was forced to ftpurchase the aid of France in furthering the policy of this government with respect to the... Venetian question1* (Italy, Vol. X, Marsh, unnumbered, con­ fidential, July 4, 1862.)

J

^affairs.

The American minister at Turin has made a more

serious charge.

He strongly suspects —

edly cannot prove —

though he admitt­

that Napoleon, as the price of his non

intervention in the Austrian war, as well,as a further reward for his withdrawal from Home, demanded large terri­ torial concessions from Italy herself1

In two long

despatches, one of April 1867 and the other of December of the same year, Marsh presents the grounds for his sus­ picion.

It must be conceded, as he himself concedes, that

his evidence is not conclusive; but it harmonizes with a rather plausible rumor which began to circulate in the Fall of 1864 and has never been completely disproved. The American minister says he has seen what he fully believes to be authentic copies of two letters, one from the Italian Minister of Foreign Affairs to the Italian negotiators at Paris, dated Sept. 7, 1864, and the other from one of these negotiators, Pepoli, to the Minister* under date of Sept. 14 of the same year.

From these

documents, says Marsh, it appears certain that the Italian negotiators were authorized to stipulate and did stipulate to cede to France all the territory of Italy lying west of a line drawn from Savona on the Mediterranean northwardly to the mouth of the Sesia, and then up the valley of that river to the Alps.

The exact course of the line from

Savona was, at the urgent request of the Italian ministry, left for future arrangement*

But nearly the whole of

Piedmont, including Turin and the very important fortress

187 l~of Casale, the key of Lombardy, would have certainly fallen upon the French side of the boundary, and very probably the strong towns of Alessandria and Novara would have been included in the cession.

In short, Marsh con­

cludes, by this treaty the ministry agreed to surrender every portion of any real importance in the western line of military defence of the kingdom, and the teims were as preposterous as would be those of a convention by which the United States should cede New England and New York to 1 Great Britain for a nominal consideration. If we can trust this evidence,

there was this second

and certainly more startling secret article to the Con2 vention of 1864. France, in return for services rendered and to be rendered was demanding of Italy a high price indeed I

The charge has decided elements of melodrama,

and is, as such, to be received with great caution, par­ ticularly in the light of Marsh*s own admission that he had seen only ^authentic copiesn of the correspondence in question.

But the charge fits in with the allegation

first made by Mazzini, and since repeated in several Tl

2.

L

Italy, Vol. XI, Marsh, No. 174, Apr. 10,1867^ The first secret article of the September Convention had been the stipulation for the transfer of the capital to Florence.

J

188

Fquarters. * 1

1

For our present purpose, however, this charge of Marsh has independent value, whether it would he a valid charge or

not.

It shows how convinced he was of the

subserviency of the Government to France.

He would not so

readily have given credence to these letters unless he had been convinced on other grounds of the power exercised by Napoleon over Italy.

It is to be noted, too, that the

proposed cession, if one was actually contemplated, was occasioned largely, though not entirely, by the plan to acquire Venetia. Returning to the realm of certainties, one result of the Venetian annexation cannot be doubted: 1.

L

the province

Bolton King, certainly a warm enthusiast for the Italian Government and most of its works, makes the following statements: MThe rumor grew that a secret article of the Convention had ceded Piedmont to France; the demoralized Cabinet made no attempt to quiet feeling by a frank statement of facts... ^op. cit. Vol. II, No. 264. And again: ttMazzini announced (Mar. 13, 186-5) that the Convention had another secret Protocol providing that if Italy obtained Rome or Venice without the consent of France, she should cede to her all Piedmont up to the Sesia. The minis­ ters, past and present, categorically denied the fact, and it is almost certain that Mazzini had, as on other occasions, allowed himself to be hoaxed. Ho doubt French intrigue had been at work in Eastern Piedmont, and possibly the question of cession had been mooted; but in the absence of evidence it is difficult to be­ lieve that even the Minghetti cabinet seriously con­ templated so black a treason to the nation. But at all events the report found credence at Turin... All classes joined in an agitation which would rather see the republic than France at Turintt(ibid. p. 269.) MarshVs two despatches are analyzed at greater length on pp. 211-212. J

189 ["was won at the cost of Italy*s tying herself to Bismarck* a chariot wheel.

To secure Venetia, Italy was forced to

commit herself to a Prussian alliance which involved her in a dangerous and costly foreign policy, and gave opportunity to another foreign dictator to make his voiceh^hrd-'a'tPl^ence and, later, at Rome. Furthermore, even though Marsh*s cession-to-Fnance theory is groundless, Italy by the way in which she ac­ quired Venetia placed herself under new obligations — hence under new bonds —

to Napoleon.

and

For it was the

latter and not Austria who actually made the transfer of the province to Italy.

Stepping grandly into the breach

after the Italian Army’s disgrace at Custoza, the Emperor assumed the office of mediator, received Venetia from Francis Joseph, and then ostentatiously handed it over to Victor Emmanuel.

Italy had enlarged her empire, but

lessened still further her freedom of action and emphasized her dependence on France.

There remains to be considered the new regime*s ec­ clesiastical policy, according to which the real value of the revolution of 1860 must largely be judged. The Moderate Liberals who carried through the unifi­ cation of Italy always claimed that they never sought to cripple the Church as a spiritual institution, nor to in­ fringe upon any of her spiritual rights. been true.

This may have

But, as has been pointed out in a previous

L--------------------------------------------------------

J

190

r

n

chapter, many of their measures in regard to the Church had precisely these effects, whether the effects were intended or not* The aim of the Italian government was, confessedly, to subordinate the Church to the State without destroying the independence of the Church in the Churchrs proper sphere of the spiritual. fallacy.

But in this program, there was a fatal

To subordinate the Church to the State so as to

make the State the supreme and last arbiter in matters of disputed or doubtful jurisdiction between the two powers, —

this was effectually to destroy the independence of the

Church as a corporate institution*

The Italian liberals

held that the State, after vindicating her position as grantor of the Church*s right to exist as a society within the State, would then allow the Church freedom to exercise her spiritual functions.

But this was a mere quibble* for

the State, if it had the power to confer the former right, had certainly the lesser power of restricting at will the Church* s activity.

If the State could give being to a

society, the State could certainly control the acts of her own creature. So, even though the Italian government had no explicit intention of destroying the Church’s spirittial freedom, that would be the logical effect of the government’s policy. The present writer, however, in the light of the evidence presented by Marsh, dares to make a more weighty charge: L It would seem that the Italian government deliberately

J

191

raought

to cripple not only the temporal influence and

prestige of the Church, but her purely spiritual activity as well* This is indeed a serious allegation to make against a liberal government.

But MarshTs testimony, in all its

implications, has persuaded the writer that the charge can be sustained.

The following extracts from his despatches

prove, it is submitted, that the direct and deliberate aim of the Italian government was to destroy the Catholic Church in her purely spiritual character• In the Fall of 1861 Marsh had a private interview with Baron Ricasoli on the subject of religious liberty in Italy.

At the moment the status of the State-Church

question was this: the Pope had refused to negotiate on the basis of the **Free Church in a Free Staten plan, and the governments intention henceforth was to break down gradually by means of an attack under strictly legal forms all Papal and Clerical opposition to the State claims. The Baron, after observing that nthe papacy, con­ sidered as a temporal power, was the great enemy to the liberation of Italy, and to its political, moral and social prosperity**, continued in an even more Significant vein:

i_

J

192 It was moreover mischievous, he said, not only in its character of a terri­ torial sovereignty, but as a spirit­ ual powgr relying upon coercion for its Influence and support... 1r®Ilglon ought never “to be clothecf with any authority to enforce its dogmas or its precepts *1 [italics mine] The implication here is clear: the spiritual freedom of the Church is to be attacked, for the good of Italy* The Baron Is making a clearcut and very evident distinction between the purely temporal and the purely spiritual or rellgiouscharacter of the Church, Marsh further clarifies Ricasoli*s meaning*

After

noting the view of many that the deprivation of the Popefs temporal power will increase his purely spiritual au­ thority, the American goes on to say that this however is not the view of the wmost enlightened^ among the liberals, nor Is it their desire*

They are ready, he be­

lieves, wto denounce the doctrine of coercion and restraint in religious matters altogether11•

They expect under all

circumstances a diminution of the spiritual power and in­ fluence of the papacy and the clergy, and are ready to accept a constitution which

iwould place every form of

religious belief on a footing of absolute equality in the state*

It Is very generally admitted that religious

servitude and civil liberty cannot long co-exist.

2

It is needless to point out that, in the language of

1* 2* L

Italy X, Marsh, Private, Turin Sept* 4, 1861; wHotes Private and Confidential for the Hon. Mr. Seward.11 Italy, Vol* X, Marsh, n* n # Sept* 4, 1861. J

193

r

i

Nineteenth Century liberals, such expressions as wthe doctrine of coercion and restraint in religious matters11 means simply the doctrine which asserts the right of the Catholic Church to exercise, in matters of faith and morals, effective and independent jurisdiction over her subjects*

This jurisdiction is absolutely essential for

the exercise of her spiritual functions; this jurisdiction the Italian government, on Marsh’s word, sought to destroy* During the Carnival festivities of March 1862 the American minister notes the ttmanifestations of popular detestation not only of the Papacy as a temporal power, but i*l of the whole moral machinery of the Romish Church* If this detestation is really wpopular,11 it supplies an argu­ ment of some vireight against the clerical regime*

But

popular demonstrations, particularly at that period in Italy, have been frequently more synthetic than sincere. But the real point of the remark is this:

it reflects

Marsh’s mind, and his idea of what the people should be detesting; and Marsh’s mind, as we know from the whole tenor of his despatches, is, with'regard to the matter, in agreement with the mind of the leaders of the Italian T~.

L

Italy,

Vol. XT," Marsh, No. 39, Mar. 10, 1862.

J

194 government* Finally, the governments aim of destroying the spiritual power of the Catholic Church in Italy is indi­ cated by the results of that policy, and by Marsh* s approval of those results.

He declares that the "moral

emancipation” of the people from the influence of the Church of Rome is rapidly progressing.

The lower clergy

to a very great extent are throwing off the yoke of the papacy, and a very large number of priests in southern Italy are openly advocating the formation of a national church which, though certainly not protestant in a the­ ological sense, would be virtually independent of the Roman See, and politically hostile to the "claims of the 2 Roman See to civil or ecclesiastical supremacy”. If language has any meaning, this signifies a clear 1*

L

Add the two following extracts* "There are no states­ men in Italy who do not believe that the exercise of — not merely temporal sway — but of any species of coercive authority by the papacy or by any other ecclesiastical jurisdiction is absolutely irreconcil­ able with the existence of the new order of things*.. ”'(Jtaly Vol. X, Marsh, No. 49, Aug. 5, 1862, [italics Marsh*s 7} Clay writes as follows: "Instinctive wisdom may have taught Garibaldi that the abolition or destruction of the papacy is the only means of removing an Inevitable obstacle to any bracing reform in the moral sentiment of his countrymen” (Italy, Vol. XI, Clay, n.n. Oct. 13, 1867.) Clay does not say, "abolition of the temporal power of the papacy”; he says, "abolition of the papacy”. And In this passage he is obviously analyzing and approving the sentiments of the Italian leader. Italy, Vol. X, Marsh, No. 53, Oct. 20, 1862.

J

195

r

i

and explicit intention on the part of the government to extinguish the Catholic Church as a spiritual force in Italy.

It Is in vain that the liberals attempt to attenu­

ate the significance of such statements by saying that they mean merely the reduction of the temporal or ’-moral*1 ence of the Church —

influ­

and, to a greater degree, her

^ecclesiastical supremacy11; for the Church’s moral influ­ ence and ecclesiastical supremacy are precisely what the Church lives by, precisely her spiritual function acting, precisely the indispensable requisites of her spiritual independence.

To destroy these to the extent of raising

up a new ’’national church11 in Catholic Italy was to destroy the

L

■=]

196 r-



'Church as a free spiritual institution in Italy,

i

i

It is noteworthy that the Clericals and their support­ ers were not easily overcome*

The Papal Syllabus of 1864

was received by large masses of Italians with a respect which, to the government, was exceedingly disturbing, and which, to historians, should be a warning urging them to recheck their evidence concerning the degree of popular support accorded to the anti-Church policy.

1*

L

The strength

That this was the governments aim was certainly be­ lieved by the parliamentary deputy Guerrieri Gonzaga, who rejoices that the Italian State, after its occu­ pation of Rome, "will no longer have a rival in the religious and ecclesiastical sphere , except that of a genericintegration of the religious activity of private citizens and of private associations11 (piritto, Turin, Oct, 15, 1862.) To reduce the Church to such an "integration of... private citizens" means, in plain words, to destroy the independent corporate existence of the Church. Signor Gonzaga continues: "The State cannot rest on a peaceful and secure foundation until it has succeeded in infusing into the despotic Church that same liberal spirit and the same modes of governing which are of the essence of tne politIcaT”brder" (ibid.) But no liberal government can presume to touch the internal government of the religious societies within the State! Although in this matter the United States of America is to be taken as a model, yet, thinks Gonzaga, the American method has erred in conceding TOO MUCH liberty to the Catholic Church! ; "The weakening in the U. S. of the ancient Protestant tradition, and the supreme prevalence there of the spirit of individual freedom has worked to the dis­ advantage of the authority and solidity of the State, and opened the way for the usurpations of the Church. The benefits which the Romish Curia has been able to derive in the U. S. from the liberty originally won by the Protestants in that country, constitute a damage to that Republic, are an attack on her traditions and future, and point a warning to other nations" (ibid.) This is indeed a tribute to American freedom from an unimpeachable source!

J

197 ”1 r of the Catholics was indicated by the failure of the Free Church Bill, and by the Senate's rejection of the proposals of 1865 and 1866 for more suppressions of monas­ teries and convents.

The government was forced to work

for what would be, at least on the surface, a compromise — pensions to the clergy as compensation for their confis­ cated properties, and even bribes to the bishops I

The

fact was that the government, in seeking to break the power of the Church, was obliged by the unexpected vigor of the Catholic opposition, to employ greater caution, even at the risk of displeasing the more rabid of the anti** Clericals.^ Some vivid light on a somewhat different aspect of the Italian government's Church policy is. offered by a despatch of the American minister,^ at Berlin at this period.

We are. shown the Italian government's aim of absolu­

tely controlling even the spiritual activities of the Church, whenever the government feels that these activities consti­ tute attdanger to the State . 9

This policy is not quite

as drastic as that of seeking to annihilate the Church's spiritual activities, but it is, nevertheless indubitably T~m The anti-Church program was all the more anomalous

L 2.

in view of the fact that Italy was at this time still overwhelmingly Catholic. This was admitted and even boasted of by the king himself, who, referring to the opening of the negotiations with Rome in the Fall of 1865, professed his ^desire to satisfy the religious interests of the majority of his subjects11 (Opihione, Nov. 18, 1865, enclosed in Italy, Vol. XI, Marsh, No. 127, Nov. '18, 1865, italics inserted. The eminent historian, George Bancroft.

-J

r a policy marked by the true accent of what we now tern

”1.

State Totalitarianism* Bancroft relates that Prince Hohenlohe, the liberal minister of Bavaria, was much frightened at the potentiali­ ties of the forthcoming Vatican Council in 1870, and assumed the burden of warning the various governments by means of an Instruction to the Bavarian ambassadors throughout Europe.**"

The whole correspondence is veiy

revealing in two directions, as showing the distinctly Totalitarian objectives of the Italian and Prussian ministelies,^ andl, in sharp contrast, the real liberality of the Belgian and Austrian States. Prince Hohenlohe expresses his fears that the Council’s intended declaration of papal infallibility involves a

declaration of the Pope’s superior­

ity over temporal rulers even in temporal affairs.

There­

fore, warns the Prince, the governments should agree on some kind of collective action and take measures to pre2 vent the Council from promulgating such declarations. Two points concerning the Prince’s statements are to be noted: first, his perturbation is based on an entire misconception of the meaning of the doctrine of Papal TT

2.

The as well as the responses of some of the governments, is enclosed in Bancrofts*s Ho. 25 of July 22, 1869, Prussia, XV. Bancroft does not give the date of the document, but says that it has just been issued. Prussia, XV, Bancroft, Ho. 25, July 22, 1869.

199 [“infallibility,- which has no relation whatsoever to the relations between Church and State, but is concerned ex­ clusively with the popefs power to decide a question of faith or morals; secondly, the Prince is proposing that the civil power interfere actively in regard to a purely ecclesiastical conclave* Hohenlohe received answers from the governments of Italy, Prussia, France, Belgium, Austria, Saxony, and Wurtemberg*

We shall analyze briefly the character of

these responses, for they clarify to an extreme degree the Italian policy towards the spiritual society. The Italian Government agrees wholeheartedly with the Bavarian minister that collective measures should be taken by the States to forestall the promulgation of the obnoxious decrees.'*’ Then, as a further evidence of its spirit of cooperation, that Government transmits to Hohenlohe a copy of an Italian Memorial of a few weeks before, which reiterates in even more explicit language the suggestion urged by the Bavarian statesman.

This

Memorial is a decidedly frank assertion by the Italian Government of its claim to exercise what we would certainly designate today as a dictorial power in the purely spiri­ tual sphere. 1.

L

The following are the more significant

wBeply by Italy, through the Marquis Centurione, dated May 4, 1869; enclosure in Bancroft, No. 25, etc.

J

200 Extracts from this document: 1) The State is entitled to take part in the act of convoking the Council; 2) The State has the right to cooperate in the selection of 1iie place and the time of the meeting of the Council, to be pre­ sent and to be heard at all meetings of the Council, and to interfere -with the proceedings of the same; 3) A canon of the Council is in no way valid or legal without its previous adoption and promulgation by the State; 4) The State is authorized to permit the Bishops to participate in the Council or to forbid them, and, under certain eventualities the State has the right to recall the Bishops from the Council.1 It must be recalled again that the Council here in question is not — —

despite all assertions to the contrary

a political assembly, but a gathering of the spiri­

tual leaders of the Church for deliberation on spiritual matters.

The power to call and to direct such an

assembly would certainly seem to belong to the competence of a spiritual society such as the Catholic Church, and the claim of the civil power to control such an assembly would scarcely be advanced by any really liberal govern­ ment today lT 2*

L

"Analysis of an Italian Memorial” dated Florence Apr. 30, 1869, translation enclosure in Ibid. This very revealing Italian Memorial concludes as follows: "The probability existed, moreover, accord­ ing to information repeatedly received, that the Papal Government intended to hand to the Bishops even before the opening of the Council a list of propo­ sitions whose adoption is to take place directly after the opening of the Council without debate, by simple acclamation. In this manner the G o v e m ments would be deprived of the power to influence the framing of the resolution.** Jjltalics mine] J

201 With the Italian response it is interesting to compare those of the other governments* Prussia took substantially the same stand as Italy* prance, as Bancroft remarked, **held herself in reserve**, i.e., was evasive.

The reactions of Belgium and of Austria,

however, were distinctly different; and, because of the light which, by ©ontrast, they throw on the Italian position, these Belgian and Austrian answers will be analyzed at some length. As regards Prince Hohenlohe*s proposal the Cabinet of Brussels reserves to itself full independence.

The entire

separation of church and state being one of the fundamental principles of the Belgian constitution, the Belgian state feels that it

has not even the right to interfere either

in the nomination or installation of ministers of whatever denomination, nor to forbid them to correspond with their superiors and publish their acts.

The Belgian government,

whose bishops need not ask for leave to go to the Homan Council, can consequently by no means presume to inter­ fere with purely religious questions, the only kind for which the competency of the Council cannot be contested.

i

Although it will not be indifferent to the Cabinet of his Majesty the King of the Belgians, whether the appre­ hensions of the Cabinet will be realized if so imposing an assembly should proclaim theories contrary to the basis of

1. nReply by Belgium, through Baron Daelmann, May 14, 1869**, enclosure to Prussia, Vol. XV, Bancroft, No. 25, July 22, 1869. “ L

- i

202 rth e Belgian constitution, the Belgian Government could

^

under no circumstances attempt to prevent the Papal Govern­ ment from regulating spiritual affairs after its own manner*

Even in the case that the decrees of the Council

should actually encroach upon the temporal domain and infringe upon the rights of the lay authorities, the Belgian Government would still adhere to the same rule of non-interference*

The canons would not be legally binding

in Belgium and legislation would provide ample means to check the abuses which the clergy might commit*^ 2 The Austrian answer recalled to Prince Hohenlohe*s attention the fact that the Austrian constitution has sanctioned the principle of full liberty to all religious confessions among its citizens, and, consistently carry­ ing out this principle, it becomes impossible to inter­ fere with the Council, an'assembly which is found to be in accordance with the constitution of the Catholic Church* His Excellency entertains the view that it is proper to point to the fact that, as far as is at present known, none of the Powers which have recognized and carried out the principle of the independence and the separation of the Church from the State have shown any misgivings as to the decrees of the approaching Council or have taken any 1* f,Reply by Belgium, through Baron Baelmann, May 14, 1869% enclosure to Prussia, Vol* XV, Bancroft, No* 25, July 22, 1 8 6 ^ 2. !tReply by Austria, through Count Ingelheim, May 21, 1 869% enclosure in Prussia, Vol. XV, des* cit* L

J

203 rpreventive measures *

1

The principle not in any m y to disturb any of the recognized religious societies in their inner workings, as long as they do not assume a character dangerous to the State, had been the rule adopted by the I. R. Austrian Government; and in the present instance there was no ground for assuming that exception to have taken place*

Further­

more, as to the course of the Council only conjectures were possible; nay, even as to the mere program of the subjects of deliberation, there were only the intimation and hints contained in the papal letter of convocation. Hobody would moreover dispute the right of the General Council to transact purely dogmatical questions, while, on the other hand, as regards the religio-political matters it would at present be hardly possible to perceive whether there was danger that the existing animosities would be increased and become more perilous for the peace of the States by the deliberations and canons of the Council* The I. R. Cabinet of Vienna is of the opinion that Governments can well await the eventual measures taken in this direction by the ecclesiastical Government*

Should

the assembled Council actually prepare to encroach upon the jurisdiction of the State, or should certain indications of such an intention be proven, then the Imperial Government also would hold that joint deliberations of the Cabinets for the purpose of guarding the sovereign prerogatives of the States might prove necessary and use­ ful*

204 Tiie Imperial Government cannot however sanction the project to oppose to the mere presumption of possible en­ croachments upon the State1s rights the fact of a (diplo­ matic conference, and indeed less so, as this might give rise to an appearance of an intended control and limitation 1 of the liberty of the Church. This is indeed a study in ©ontrastsi

The Belgian and

Austrian governments, obviously, did not share the view of the Italian government in regard to the degree of liberty to be allowed to spiritual societies within the State, As to which of the views was the more truly in accord with the ideals of free government, and the more imitative of American practice, Bancroft could not have had any doubts* The last portion of Marsh !s testimony during the period in question deals with the Italian governments seizure of the city of Rome. At the beginning of 1870 the deteimination to occupy without delay the Eternal City was agreed on by the Lanza cabinet.

The necessity of placating Napoleon had been

rendered an anachronism by the outcome of the prancoPrussian war.

The Pope was deaf to all offers of compro­

mise, for he knew that no compromise offer would include the retention by him of his sovereign rights to his terri­ tory. 1.

L

After some transparent efforts to legalize the

Here ends the present analysis of the Austrian Reply. The Cabinets of Saxony and of Wurtemberg replied in similar vein. Vide Bancroft, des. cit., enclosure.

J

205 •""seizure, the troops of General Cadorna entered the porta Pia on September 20, 1830, and Italy had won her capital, Marsh1s comments at this time have considerable value, for two chief reasons: first, they indicate the existence of a strong popular opposition to the governments policy towards the Church, and, secondly, they reveal that the policy, at least in regard to its Boman aspect, is de­ cidedly condemned by Marsh himself. as to this Marsh, writing in

popular opposition: January 1870, says that the Italian

statesmen believe that

nnot merely resistance

to

Borne,but

any substantial reform

in the Boman Church...

by

the

government, would not be sustained by the people unless such action of the government was sanctioned by the Ital­ ian prelacy and episcopate.”"*" This statement can have only one meaning: the govern­ ment realizes that its Church program does not enjoy popu­ lar support except insofar as it can be approved by the 2 bishops. i. 2*

L

Italy, Vol. XIII, Marsh, No. 276, Jan. 10, 1870. The liberal journal Corriere di Milano made at this time a remarkable admission concerning the strength of the Catholic party in Italy. It would be unwise, says the Corriere, for the government to grant uni­ versal suffrage, for in universal suffrage the Catholic party would find a support. The majority, counted head by head, lives in the country districts jpampagnaj, and the country districts favor the curate. The article concludes with the naive reflection that, ^therefore, the governments opposition to universal suffrage arises not from self-interest, but from a sincere love of libertyrt (Corr. di Mil., Feb. 11, T86'9'7 Italics' ins e r t e ' d ' ~

J

206

r

1 With regard to the seizure of the city of Rome *

Marsh’s views may he summarized thus:

it is necessary for

the welfare of Italy that Rome he taken, hut the govern­ ment’s previous commitments with Prance, and the particu­ lar methods employed in the seizure, are illegal — as such, he thinks, to he condemned —

and

and there is no

indication that they accord with the wishes of the Roman people By the Convention of 1864, says the American minister, Italy admitted the right of Prance, and, hy implication, of every other Catholic power, to Interfere in the rela­ tions between the kingdom and Rome*

The ministry weakly

failed to denounce the return of the French troops in 1867 as a breach of the Convention hy Prance, and wit is not. easy to see on what principle Italy can now occupy Rome, without the consent of the Pope, if not also of the government of France *!t^ Furthermore, there has always been a professed hope that when the incubus of the French occupation was with­ drawn, there would he a spontaneous rising of the Roman people, imposing enough in its character to paralyze the opposition to the Papacy to the annexation of the States of the Church to the Kingdom of Italy*

The advocates of

the Convention, at the time of its promulgation, encouraged the belief that the Emperor of France looked for­ ward with satisfaction to such an event, and even that the 2.

Italy, Vol. XIII, Ho. 299, Aug. 26, 18V0. Italy, Vol. XIII, Marsh, Ho. 299, Aug. 26, 1870.

207

•~real object of the Convention was to facilitate the acquit sition of Rome by Italy, by means of a revolution effected! by the Romans themselves.

This, it was alleged, would be

no breach of the Convention, nor would it authorize a renewal of French occupation.

But Marsh has no faith in

the soundness or sincerity of this opinion, and he de­ clares that* in any event* there are at present no indications of a disposition, on the part of the Roman people, to resort to energetic measures for the overthrow of the pontifical government.2 The Italian government, Marsh continues, is concen­ trating on the Roman frontier a military force far greater than would be necessary to overcome any resistance which Rome could make.

This display, he thinks, is *designed

to afford a moral support to possible popular movements in the Roman territory*,3

and it is even rumored that

an insurrection is in preparation, ...though there is no evidence that the people of the city or country are now ready to participate in it.4 T. 2, 4,

L

ihis whole paragraph Is a paraphrase of part of the same despatch No, 299, Italy, Vol. XIII, Marsh, No. 299, Aug, 26, 1870. Tbid. An apparently valid indication of the RomansT loyalty to Pius IX in 1870 is furnished by a memori­ al offered to the Pontiff on the occasion of his jubi­ lee in July of the following year. The memorial con­ tained the signature of approximately one half the male population of the city. The conditions under /which the signatures were secured, as well as the ad­ mitted integrity of the sponsors of the plan, lend considerable creditability to the results. Vide: Sopra la soscrizione romana raccolta ed ©ff’ertm a Pio IX P. 1 7 in occasione del suo Giubbileo pontificals, dalla socTeta per gl1 Interessi cattoricI,osservazfoni di CTM. CurcT-dT~C n r . “(JTTTfcme, 18717----------------- j,

208 r

Marsh in a later despatch repeats his view that the

"1

Italian government cannot invade the city of Rome without the violation of legal obligations*

By the first article

of the Piedmontese Constitution of 1848 the State is pledged to the exclusive maintenance of the Catholic religion; by repeated ministerial and royal declarations it is pledged to the absolute separation

of church and state and the

recognition of absolute equality of rights in different religious sects; and by the convention of 1864 it has admitted the right of foreign intervention between itself and the papacy, and has ^pledged itself to defend the pontifical territory against any assertion of right by the Italian p e o p l e T h e

final conclusion of the American

minister is, that Italy cannot take Rome without a vio­ lation of all these pledges.

The government, he affirms,

has no friends among the States of Europe, and, in a European Congress, could not count on a single vote upon any of the issues between the Italian State and the Pope. 1. 2.

L

2

Italy, vol. XIII, Marsh, No. 301, S©pt. 9, 1870. ibid.. The success of the Italian politicians in over­ coming any scruples connected with pledge-breaking is suggested by the following: **Although the Italian ministry pledged itself to carry out the *national program*^at the session of the senate three weeks ago, the President of the Council solemnly assured the senate that the government would in no case resort to force, and the Minister of Foreign Affairs, early last week, declared, in the most explicit manner, to eminent statesmen opposed to the movement, that the Italian troops would never enter Rome, and that'they would simply occupy strategic points, none of which would probably be within twenty miles of the city** (Italy, Vol. XII, No. 304, Sept. 21, 1870, italics Marsh*s .)

J

209 f~"

The American minister believes that the seizure of

"1

Rome was, at the critical moment, dictated by upopular violence11 employed against a weak ministry which, in the matter, was vacillating to the point of sheer paralysis His final judgment, as well as the essentially real politik character of the men who made Italy is well expressed in a passage written in late 1870,

He remarks that one now

often hears men of a certain standing in public life say that the quality of the formal stipulations of an arrange­ ment with the Papacy is of no importance, because in practice those stipulations will be a dead letter, and the government will be administered in entire independence of the Papacy, however strongly the government may bind itself to respect the stipulations.

2

This view of the rz

subject, thinks Marsh, indicates a low political morality, but it is very likely to find favor with many who look upon the possession of Rome as a new epoch in the national life which cannot be inaugurated at too high a price. Marsh, in other words, watching his friends consoli­ date their seizure of Rome, approves, on the whole, what they have done, but is considerably shocked at what he regards as the illegality and immorality of their 1* 2. 3. 4.

L

Italy, Vol, XIII, Marsh, No, 303, cipher portion, Sept":' 12, 1870. Italy, Vol. XIII, Marsh, n.n. Oct. 27, 1870 We might remark editorially, that this seems to be putting it conservatively! Italy, Vol. XIII, Marsh, n.n. Oct. 27, 1870.

J

210 Hnethoda,^

Viewing the scene with an American*a reapect

1

for acquired and legal rights, hia aversion for papalism ia overcome by hia dislike for the high-handed policy of the Italian liberals* As to the general picture which he presents of the first decade of rule by the new government, this much may be said: the honeymoon period was distinctly over, and domestic disunion, domestic inefficiency, and domestic suffering were beginning to appear.

There were clearly

visible, also, the outlines of a theory of administration which has in later days become known as the method of the Totalitarian State, a method which seeks to dominate all other societies within the national boundaries.

This was

the New Italy; but it had not brought to the people a more free, larger, and happier life. apparently, were aware of this.

And the people,

The wind was rising;

there were ominous signs in the sky.

1*

L

The; Civ iIta Cattolica made these charges against the Roman plebiscite of Oct. 2, 1870: Wwe have noted, in studying the foreign press, that therein [no references are given) the Roman plebiscite is censured on four main points: 1) on the day of the voting there were present in Rome from all over Italy many thousands of non-Romans; 2) antecedent to the voting there were not compiled electoral lists, wherefore anyone could vote on that day, and repeat his vote as often as he pleased; 3) several foreigners actually published in English and German journals the state­ ment that they had been admitted to the voting, and had voted several times;; 4). the voting did not begin until mid-morning, and the results were announced promptly that evening, a rapidity impossible if an honest count were taken*1 (*?La Fedelta dei Romani al S. Padre*1, Civ. Cat., Ser. VIII, Vol. Ill (1871), p. 531} J

211 NOTE TO CHAPTER SIX The possibility of a second secret article to the September Convention of 1864 #ad evidently captured Marsh’s imagination. Some further extracts are here appended from the two despatches of 1867 referring to the matter. ’’you will remember that in 1864 Mazzini declared that the Italo-French convention of that year was accompanied with a secret stipulation for the cession of a large and important part of subalpine Italy to France... I have satis­ factory evidence that on the day before the signature of the convention an arrange­ ment apparently identical with that described by Mazzini had been concluded by the negotiators and accepted by the Italian min­ istry... There is* however, no probability that the Italian people or its legislature will ever consent to so suicidal a sacri­ fice The letters in question have... been substantially disclosed in an article published some months since in the London Times, but the article was deemed too incredible to be noticed; they have as yet been shown to few..... “Various circumstances tend to show that the scheme of the further territorial aggrandisement of France at the cost of Italy has been long and steadily pursued by the Emperor. One of these circum­ stances is the tenacity with which France ... has insisted on the construction of certain public works which are not demanded by the interests of Italy, but which would be of great value to France when once in possession of the territory agreed to be ceded to her by the secret articles of the convention of 1864* I refer to two carriage roads over the Alps... and two railways, one from Turin to Savona, and one along the whole Ligurian coast to the French line near Mentone. In both cases, the carriage roads connect barren regions between which there are not and cannot be any Important commercial relations, but L

J

212 which, as lines of communication be­ tween the two great military centers of Grenoble and Briancon on one side and provinces to be bought or conquered by France on the Italian slope of the Alps, on the other, would be mg value to the Empire...., The secret treaty furnishes a d e a r explanation of the motive for the removal of the Italian capital to Florence, a measure which upon the Italian interpretation of it was absolutely with­ out intelligible significance. It was obvious that a proposal for the cession of the political capital of the nation to a foreign power would not be entertained for a moment by the Italian parliament or people; but it was thought that the surrender of the Piedmontese territory would be much less unpalatable after it should have been stripped of its politi­ cal importance and prestige by the trans­ fer of the seat of government... to a city belonging to another geographical region. . . n (Italy, Vol. XI, Marsh, No. 174, Apr. 10, 1867.) Eight months later Marsh writes: 1 believe that the language held by the Emperor to the Italian minister at Biarritz... was ... connected with an intended revival of the secret articles of the Convention of 1864..... It excited some surprise at the time, that the Italian government concentrated no troops in Piedmont, but assembled a large force at and near Pisa, leaving the north­ western frontier entirely undefended. This course may be explained by the supposition of an intention on the part of the Italian government to take this method of carrying out the secret articles of the Convention of 1864...H (Italy. Vol. XI, Marsh, No. 192, Dec. 20, 1867.)

L

J

213

r

CHAPTER SEVEN The New Kingdom

“1

1870 - 1880

*, .A majority of the governing class of Italians Certainly still prefer the moarchical form of government, hut there is wide and well grounded dissatisfaction with the present state of things, in all classes* The removal of the capital from Turin and the general policy of which that unfortun­ ate measure was a feature, destroyed the attachment of the soundest portion of the Italian people to the House of Savoy? and neither the personal nor the political character of the members of that house is such as to have secured to them the respect or confidence of the population of central and southern Italy,**! This was written during the last period (1869-1876) of the Italian Right ministries.

It Is rather surprising

that Marsh*s views are so pessimistic*

p

The Right govern­

ments, before ceding to the heft in 1876, were to have no !_ 2*

L

itaiy, Vo 1 * X11I, Marsh, (cipher portion) No. 299, Aug. 26, 1870. For a view fundamentally opposed to that of Marsh throughout this chapter see Francesco Bertolini, Storia d* Italia dal 1814 al 1878, 8 vols. Milan, 1881.

J

214 rsmall achievements to their credit,

Minghetti in 1873

would succeed in balancing the national budget —

”1

the

first time since the foundation of the Kingdom that such a happy situation had been effected.

Under the same

ministry would be completed the organization of the new national army on a conscript basis calculated to maintain a standing force of 350,000 men.

There would be increased

building of railroads, the great Frejus tunnel being opened in 1871. ing.

Industry and commerce were rapidly expand­

The census of 1871 would show a marked increase in

population. The government, it is true, would be continually harassed by its opponents of the Left, and particularly by the more moderate opposition group formed in 1873 by Rattazzi, Crispi, and Mancini, under the name of the associazione progress ista. But this was no unusual state of affairs in constitutional monarchies, and was perhaps a harmless safety valve for the effervescent Italian politicians.

More serious would be the attacks from

Radicals like those at Villa Ruffo in Rimini and else­ where, and Saffi*s Alleanza repubbllcana. But Minghetti*s vigorous repressive measures would hold the dangerous forces in check, and would see his cabinet safely — by a small margin —

if

through the elections of November

1874. There were, however, fundamental and very ominous defects in the administration of the new Kingdom, and

L--------------------------------------------

J

215

^Marsh perceived the fact*



The American minister tells us of the governments continued failure to maintain a system of taxation which would he both reasonable and just* this condition —

Even more serious than

and largely caused by it —

is the

governments inability to maintain social order and security of life and property against the attacks of the law­ less,

This double failure has led, naturally, to grave

dissatisfaction throughout Italy, and especially in the Mezzogiomo. Marsh in describing the situation goes into consider­ able detail, and the importance which he himself attached to his revelations is indicated by his request of nine 1 months later that they be withheld from publication* The main points made by Marsh are as follows: He cites a recent speech of Minghetti, in which the premier has referred to the perilous state of the national finances, and has deplored the condition of insecurity of the life and property of the citizens against unlaw­ ful violence. 1,

L

This later evil, observes Marsh, is now

He writes thus to the State Department: UI am under some embarrassment in regard to Ho# 520 the despatch containing his most pointed observations concerning the lack of public security and suggesting causes of this condition, dated Oct. 6, 1874, because, although I wrote the despatch with a view of its publication and have no desire to retract o r ,modify any part of it, yet I think it doubtful whether, in the present very excited state of public opinion in Italy, upon some of the points dwelt upon in the despatch, it may not be expedient to suppress it altogether11 (Italy* Vol. XV, Marsh, No. 564, July 22, 1875.) J

216

presented for the first time to the consideration of the

1

legislature with the earnestness and solemnity which the problem merits.'** Each of these two main topics is then considered by the American minister.

His remark on what he terms the

wmethods of taxation highly objectionable in principle, 2 and productive of wrongs and hardships in practice11 will be passed over briefly here, as they are but expansions of

his views detailed in the previous chapter.

His

final conclusion is that these heavy impositions are and will be for a long time to come, necessarily evils, for the nation is not yet prepared for the heroic remedy of lightening the burdens of the poor and restoring the national exchequer to a healthy condition by exacting Tl

2.

L

Italy, Vol. XV, Marsh, No. 520, Oct. 6, 1874. Ibid.

J

217. from the rich enough of their superfluous wealth to ac1 complish both objects. It is when he approaches the subject of the sicurezza pubblica that Marsh, at this period, As. most informative in his views as to the root causes of the condition of lawlessness and of the general moral deterioration among the lower classes. Tl

L

Italy, Vol.XV,"Marsh, No. 520, Oct. 6, 1874. In this despatch the following points are stressed: The tax on buildings is about thirty four and a half per cent, on lands a little over forty per cent, and on personal property nearly fourteen per cent. The dazio consumo or octroi Is a tax paid on the introduction of articlesT~6iT consumption into cities and towns. The octroi duties are very high. Wine pays more at the city gates of Florence than the wine itself cost twen­ ty five years ago, and the duty on bullocks driven to the same city for slaughter is about ten dollars per head. In virtue of familiar economic laws, the dazio increases the cost of the article to the consumer by much more than its direct amount, and in consequence of this and of other heavy taxes the expense of living has arisen enormously in all Italian towns within the last ten years. Marsh feels that the 11annoyance and impolicy11 of im­ posing such vexatious restrictions hardly |teeds to' be illustrated, and he declares that they strike a stranger as peculiarly inconsistent with the finan­ cial system of a country which, on the principle of free trade, admits foreign wares of almost description at little more than nominal .rates of duty. The tax on grist still ’’weighs heavily on the poor,” who pay not only a large proportional, but a much greater absolute share of this impost. The lottery system (from which the government receives the equiva­ lent of 77,000,000 francs yearly, is as demoralizing in Italy as it has proved elsewhere. The government’s salt monopoly is particularly objectionable because the high price of salt consequent on the monopoly les­ sens the use and consumption of it by the poor to a degree which is thought sensibly injurious to the health of these humbler classes.

J

218 ”|

He notes with relief that the attention of the government seems to he aroused to a subject the impor­ tance of which to industry and social advancement, can­ not, he says, be overrated, and which has hitherto been regarded with an indifference and an apathy which his long familiarity with this country has not enabled him to comprehend.1

He refers, of course, to the lack of social

law and order throughout Italy. The dark picture drawn by Signor Minghetti is not an Q exaggerated one, especially as regards the old Pontifi­ cal and Neapolitan territories, and, it is a discouraging fact that the increasing diffusion of knowledge and of material prosperity among the lower classes has not mitigated the evil, but that it is evidently increasing.^ The causes of this state

of affairs which, to a

certain extent, has always existed in Italy, even under the most severe governments, are:

first, the physical

configuration of the country, which renders the escape of malefactors easy and their pursuit difficult, and, secondly, other reasons which 11it would take a volume to discuss. But the aggravation of crime accompanied by violence is due, chiefly, Marsh thinks, to the defective.adminis­ tration of justice.

The institution of trial by jury has

not proved itself suited to the character and traditional T~ L 2. 3. 4.

Italy, Vol. XV, Marsh, No. 520, Oct. 6, 18741 Ibid. Ibid. Ibid.

" J

219 r

"I

customs of the Italian people, and the system of terro­ rism kept up by robbers and assassins Interferes very seriously with the fearless and independent discharger-of the duties of witnesses, jurors, and magistrates*

1

Criminal convictions are therefore difficult to obtain, and so long as the people of Italy continue to regard the execution of the murderer with greater horror than they feel for his butcheries, however numerous and atrocious, and to sympathize with the criminal rather than with his yictims, the sentence of the law will rarely be carried out.

Murder is still legally punish­

able with death, but death is not actually inflicted except for parricide, and the common assassin confidently expects to elude detection and conviction, and, if con­ victed, to escape with a light punishment*

It is no

exaggeration to say that, In practice, simple theft is more uniformly and more severely punished in Italy than p murder with malice aforethought. This is indeed a picture of failure on the part of the new regime to maintain the public security and to pro­ tect the lives and property of its citizens -- a duty which, says Marsh, is 11the first, we may almost say the sole duty of organized governments.”

We are tempted to

ask the question, Might not a greater respect for and 1^ 2. 3. L

Italy, Vol. XV, Marsh, ho* 520, Oct. 6. 1874* Ibid. Ibid. j

220

Reliance on the sanctions of Religion and Catholic morality have aided the government in handling these evils? Were not the evils themselves due, in large part, to the fact that the government had insisted on dissociating, as far as it could,• Religion and Catholic morality from the life of a traditionally Catholic people? Marsh hints at another and almost equally significant reason for the governments failure:

the rulers of Italy

have been so preoccupied with the task of unifying the country politically that they have been forced to neglect the duty of protecting the lives and properties of its citizens*

1

We are constrained to ask, Is political unity

Worth such a price?

Marsh apparently thinks that it is.

But we may well doubt whether the neglect of the prime interests of the people is balanced by the advantages to be secured by making Italy a single body politic. We touch here on a root problem of the whole subject of Italian Unification. stated thus:

That problem may be briefly

Was the aim of Unification the general

good, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the common people?

If the aim were such -- and, to the legitimate,

it must have been such —

have we not a right to expect

that, fourteen years after the establishment of Unifica­ tion, some of these beneficial results should be evident? T~ L

'jtaly, Vol. XV, Marsh/ No. 520, Oct'. 6,1874.

! ' J

221 r But, say the advocates of Unification, there had to he a "1 necessary period of transition, a period of “setting things in order,“ during which time there would be inevi­ tably a few social dislocations. defence would seem to be obvious:

The answer to this a whole generation

(for the evils did not cease with 1874) should not be penalized for a political ideal.

Fifteen million people

should not be sacrificed to a period of transition; it was for these people, not for a hypothetical race of the future that the unity of

Italy had been consummated.

A

transition period extended through a life-time becomes an anomalous and rather permanent conditionI The American minister expresses his confidence that the government will adopt any measure, however stringent, which may seem necessary to secure the peace and safety of the population.

But he warns that he has

no trust in any but a “radical reform in judicial pro­ ceedings, and what is more important still, an inflexible severity in punishment, coupled perhaps with some plan of local responsibility of the populations of the districts in which such crimes are perpetrated. Marsh, a few months later, followed up this exposi­ tion with a further elucidation on the same topic. He forwards to Washington a series of articles writ­ ten for the public press by Pasquale Villari, a prominent 1 . Italy, Vol. XV, Marsh, No. 520, Oct. 6. 1874 L

J

222 member of the Chamber of Deputies.

These pieces deal with”!

the 11causes of the insecurity of life and property in the southern provinces of Italy and the Island of Sicily,M arid Marsh was obviously impressed by them.'*'

In view of

this high commendation of the author, and the eagerness of the American minister to transmit the full text of the articles to Washington, we may safely conclude that the sentiments expressed by Villari were substantially endorsed by Marsh. The following is an analysis of Villari!s exposition: Why is it, he asks, that win some of our provinces a man cannot travel unless surrounded by armed protectors? Why is it that the inhabitants of those regions are, o though dwelling amid liberty, little better than slaves?11 He offers a general, though exceedingly profound explana­ tion:

Ho political question, he says, can be solved y/ithfc

out first solving the correlative social questions.

2 L

.

A

1 forward to the Department of State, by this post, two copies of the Opinione, of the 23rd, 24th, 26th, 27th, 30th, and 31st of March, 1875, containing a remarkable series of articles on the causes of the insecurity of life and property in the southern provinces of Italy and the Island of Sicily, by the Hon. Pasquale Villari of the Chamber of Deputies. Mr* Villari is well known as the author of the Life of Savonarola and other works of great literary., and his­ torical value, and he occupies both morally and intel­ lectually a post in the front rank of eminent Italians of our time. He is a native of the Neapolitan States, and, except as to Sicily, speaks d£ visu in all that he has written on the subject. The future members of his series will be forwarded Si they appear1* (Italy, Vol. XV, Marsh, Ho. 544, Mar. 31, 1875.) Italy, Vol. XV, des. cit., Villari enclos. J

223

r

n

change of government without a corresponding and progres­ sive transformation of society is vain* He then proceeds to make his criticism much more specific.*

If, he says, we had transformed our society

before making our political revolution, we would not now find ourselves in the position of having made only the political revolution, by which the government and the administration were changed Jjsi sono mutatij and nothing else*^* This goes to the roots of the question of Italian Unification, and points out the deeper, psychological* and historical defects of the great event*

The New Italy,

according to Villari, did not bring peace and prosperity and other blessings to the Italian people, because the New Italy did not spring from the natural exigencies and natu­ ral character of that people*

It was a forced, artificial

creation, a rigid political mechanism superimposed on a society which had not been sufficiently prepared for it by previous historical experience* The Italian statesman proceeds with a detailed account, in very dark colors, of the economic and social condition of the lower classes In the South*

His observa­

tions constitute a striking confirmation of those of Marsh ©©hdifrmlsg oppressive taxes, an unpopular agrarian policy, failure of the government to maintain law and order, and L_l*

Vo~lY XV, des. cit *, Villari enclos *

j

224 ^dissatisfaction of the people with the government. Villari, in some respects, goes further than Marsh. He declares flatly that lawlessness and violence in the Mezzogiorno is the result chiefly of the wretched economic conditions.1

The government, he charges, has made the

mistake of employing only repressive measures against dis­ orders, without attempting to apply radical preventive remedies.

2

None can deny, says Villari, the great benefits ac­ cruing from the new government.

But, he continues, **1

am

concerning myself with a single class of citizens,” i.e., the poor peasants which, it is to he noted, constituted at this time probably four-fifths of the whole population. He then makes the decidedly startling statement that the social and economic conditions of these latter have been T~,

2*

L

11The prime sau&es n f brlgantaggio are the predisposing causes. First among these is the social condition, the economic state of the campaguolo... The contadini have no bond which urges them to stay attached to the soil51 (Villari, oj). cit.) ^In this, as in, many other matters, the urgency of our repressive measures has taken the place of those pre­ ventive remedies which alone can forestall the con­ tinuance of an evil... We have been good surgeons but bad physicians. Many amputations have we made with the knife, many cancerous tumors have we cauterized; rarely have we sought to pruify the blood stream. Who doubts that the government has opened a great num­ ber of schools, has built many roads and constructed other public works of all kinds? But the social con­ ditions of the contadini were not given any careful study, nor were any steps taken leading directly to the betterment of the condition of those people.” (ibid.)

J

225 Hnade worse by the new regime, which, instead of transform­ ing the peasants into a new borghesia, has increased the 1 despotic power of the old borghesia over the peasants. As to the government's failure in the matter of law­ lessness in the South, Villari asks a solemn question: The day when Italy shall admit herself impotent to secure and to force respect for the elementary laws of justice, that day shall she have confessed in the face of all humanity that she has forfeited her right to exist. What will humanity care for an Italy now united instead of divided and oppressed, if our liberty declares that, in order to exist, it must permit the sacred rights of the weak to be daily violated?2 The new liberty, concludes Villari regretfully, has not been a liberty for the poor peasants.

To the defend­

ers of the new order who say, nHave faith in liberty, in the Age, in progress, in enlightenment!** he has only one response: Let them read...let them hear what is being repeated every day by the English and Germans: ’the Italian people know only the form, and not the substance of liberty, for they have not recognized the truth that a people is free only when the powerful and the rich make continuedsacrifice of their own wealth for the good of the poor and the weak.^ Tl

Ibid. villari continues: klAs to the sale of the ec~ cleslastical lands and their division into small lots... The purpose of this was to create a class of small peasant owners... The result was quite different from what was anticipated; for it is a fact that those lands fell into the hands of the grandi proprietari, and the new class of contadini did notform Itselfw (ibid.)

2*

Ibid*

3.

Ibid.

L

J

226 — I

So far Villari.

His indictment of the New Italy is

severe, and it constitutes a confirmation of some of the main theses of the present work.

Briefly, the Italian

statesman’s criticism amounts to this:

the Italian Revo­

lution, up to 1875, had not brought real freedom to the mass of the Italian people, because it had brought a dete­ rioration in their economic and social condition.

The

Revolution had moved too fast for the society which it was its first obligation to serve; it had been out of harmony with the spirit and character of that society. The Italian Revolution was a mistake, because it was a . ^ i t•1 misf To what extent Marsh agreed with Villari’s conclu­ sions

is admittedly open to doubt.

It must be remembered

that it is here the Italian statesman,not the American minister, who is speaking.

Yet Marsh praises Villari

both as a statesman and as a scholar, and thinks that the Qpinione articles are of sufficient value to be sent in extenso to the State Department.

Marsh/designates the

articles as ttremarkable,” and in no way questions their criticism which, substantially, are echoes of what he Tl

L

See the following for confirmations of Villari»s views: Atti della Giunta per la Inchiesta Agraria e sulle condlzioni de11a clas se agricola, Rome, 1881, 8 vols., e.g., pp. 7-15, 20, 44, 57. Sonnino, Sidney, 3: Contadini in Sicilia nel 1876, Florence, 1877, e.g., pp. 461-463. Hicastro, S., Dal Quarantotto al Sessanta (Biblioteca Storica del Risorg. Ital.), Milan, 1913. ---J

227

r

n himself has been writing to Washington for several years past.

It would seem a fair conclusion that the American

minister agreed with the strictures and analyses just presented. To turn again to the Church-State question:

How was

this problem being handled by the Bight Ministries in the first half of the

'seventies?

In this respect, indeed, the rule of L&ms&uandi* Minghetti gave their liberal opponents less cause for com­ plaint.

The government proved its progressive spirit by

suppressing in 1874 the remaining religious orders in Rome, by abolishing in 1875 the exemption of clerics from military service, and, in the same year, by expel­ ling from their sees more than thirty bishops for the Xatfe:r&:! ipefusal to obtain the royal exequatur before exercising their episcopal jurisdiction. The dictatorial and totalitarian aspect of this policy has already been pointed out in preceding pages. We shall confine ourselves here to only a few additional observations on the subject. Marsh remarks in December 1872 that the new bill for regulating the religious corporations of Rome has met with strong opposition, and threatens to overthrow the Lanza ministry.1 T. L

This is precisely what happens in the

Italy, Vol. XIV, No. 428, Dec. 9, 1872

J

228

following July.

1

H

The causes of this opposition to the anti-Church measures of 1872-73 were, apparently, complex.

Undoubt­

edly, a strong section of the liberals regarded Lanza’s policy as being too moderate towards Rome, and this proba­ bly was the chief reason for ills fall.

But the historian,

viewing the picture as a whole so many years later, is tempted to seek for a further reason.

Was it possible

that the distinctly Catholic opposition was stronger than has been commobly admitted by the liberals?

If so, it

fitted ill with the principles of liberal government to have disregarded this opposition so persistently. The American minister, while discounting the real effectiveness of this Catholic opposition, has given hints as to its force.

He relates, for example, that one day

in 1877 some ’’Internationalists” at Benevento shouted “Long live Pius 1X1“ in the same breath with their cries of “sedition.*

And he

once heard a rather remarkable

speech by an ultra-Republican orator addressing some rail­ road workers in Lombardy.

This ultra-Republican denounced

the government for not putting up images of the Virgin and the Saints in the railroad stations; and he concluded his speech with a cheer for Garibaldi, in which he was joined by his hearers!

2. L

Italy, Vol. M V , WO* 462, July 10. 1875. Italy, Vol. XVI, Marsh, No. 662, Apr. 23, 1877.

' J

229 These agitators may or may not have been "Internationalists1* or ultra-Republicans, but they certainly were displeased at the government’s anti-Church program.

And

we are inclined to wonder whether the displeasure was confined merely to a few enthusiasts at railroad stations when we read Marsh’s assertion that ’’the violence of the clergy and of their lay supporters in Italy...is almost beyond d e s c r i p t i o n . T h e high interest of the state­ ment lies in this:

the existence In Italy of a lay

Catholic agitation strong enough to threaten seriously the political status quo would seem to indicate that a very large portion -- perhaps even a majority —

of the

Italian people were not in accord with the Church policy of the government.

But, on its own principles, the whole

raison d ’etre of the government lay in its concordance

1.

L

Italy, Vol. XVI, Marsh, No. 670, May 10, 1877. (Italics mine3 The passage continues: ’’Anyone liv­ ing among them has abundant opportunities.of being convinced that they are prepared to resort to arms in support of the pretensions of the Papacy and the principles of the syllabus of 1864, and that they hope to find in the present political complications of Surope an occasion for the employment of material force in the universal re-establishment of the civil supremacy of the Church.11

J

230 |—

_ 1 with the will of the people.

*1

It is interesting that some of this opposition, in confirmation of its claims, appealed to the practice of the Government of the United States.

Bather piquantly,

this argument was used several times by the very Conser\

vative publication of the Roman Jesuits, the givilta Cattolica.

In an article written in 1862 the anonymous

author pays the following compliments to the Western Republic for which the Italian liberals had such admiration and reverence: ...the United States, where Religion and the State are separated, and where this total separation leaves the state entirely free in her civil sphere, while the Church is entirely free in the religious sphere. As a consequence, observe how both State and Church prosper 1^ In the United States, continues the Jesuit, separa­ tion of Church and State does not involve the State’s ll

l

2.

Marsh mentions the w .multitude of church festivals, many of which had fallen into neglect, but have unhap­ pily been revived within the last half dozen yearswB t .ins^ (Italy, Vol. XV, Marsh, No. 546, Apr. 4, 1875.) Evidently the people wanted the church festivals! An incident reported by Marsh towards the end of 1872 suggests to the student of American history a rather striking contrast. The American minister received a complaint from two American citizens — Mrs. Gould and Mrs. Van Meter — to the effect that they had been prevented by the Italian government from opening a private elementary school in the country. The com­ plainants objected that ^American citizens in Italy were entitled to the enjoyment of all the rights and liberties possessed by Italian citizens in the United States” (Italy, Vol. XIV, Marsh, No. 429, Dec. 19, 1872.). Marsh assumed a rather timid attitude in the matter and gave his compatriot's little relief. givilta Cattolica, Series V, Vol. Ill (1862), p. 414.j

231

r /

:m,e:prl-a^ for Religion,

Not to mention the fact that the

n

American Congress is annually opened with Msacred rites, there is the very recent exhortation of President Lincoln for the purpose of trexciting the Federalists to public prayer and humiliation.*

The pretended separation of the 1 State and Religion was by that fact solemnly disavowed. But, it may be

objected, the United States Govern­

ment has no respect for specific dogmas or specific reli­ gious practices.

But this assertion is constantly belied

by the facts: The celebrated Jesuit priest Kohlman, pleading the inviolability of the seal of sacramental confession, ob­ tained for Catholic priests an exemp­ tion from the laws binding witnesses in the civil courts The Arch­ bishop of New York, Monsig. Hughes, obtained from the senate and Assembly of that State the revocation of the laws which had been passed in hatred of the Church by the fanatical sect of the Know-Nothings. Does not this attitude indicate not only a religious sentiment, but also a reverence for the various specific doctrines which are professed by the various religious bodies?2 But, it may be objected again, those doctrines are ttall respected equally.* ate cliches

(This was one of the most inveter­

of the Italian liberals.)

If so, the United States acts in an entire.ly different manner than the Italian State, which condemns £disprezzate^| all doctrines equally. T~.

2. L3.

Civllta Cattolica, Series" V, Vol. Ill (1862) p. 414. Ibid., pp. 415-16. Ibid.„ &», 416.

232

r

n The article concludes with a testimonial which, while inaccurate in its interpretation of the legal requirements of the American system, portrays truthfully, however, its spirit: It is false to assert that there ex­ ists in the United States a .total separation of Religion from the. State. The United States Government demands at least that the religions professed within .her borders be Christian, and that each person de­ clare to what sect he belongs* ..: The Government gives from time to time public testimonies of her reli­ gious spirit. She does not demand from her citizens any acts contrary to the religion which they profess. In all this there is evident a mutual and amicable relationship and a voluntary dependence of the State on religious prescriptions. The question as to how far Marsh would agree with this interpretation of American religious toleration is irrelevant; the interpretation speaks for itself and is vindicated not by Marsh but by the facts of history.

To

what extent the Italian liberals sensed the contrast between the two systems it is difficult -- or is it?-- to 1.

L

Civilta Cattolica, Series V, Vol. Ill (1862) p. 419. Another contrast between the .American and Italian method is provided by the divergent views of the two governments with regard to the civil jurisdiction of the Pope after 1870; see the extracts from the PishBlanc correspondence in Mote, leh.VII. see also Civilta Cattolica, Ser. XII, Vol. IX (1885), pp. 129-1401 ^La Civilta e i Gesuiti al tribunale del Congresso degli Stati Uniti d TAmerica.w This article was suggested by the eulogies pronounced in the United States Senate by Protestant Senators on the subject of Jesuit educa** tional achievements among the American Indians. J

233

r

"i

say# The long reign of the Right came to an end in March of 1876, when the Minghetti cabinet fell in consequence of a vote on the question of State control of the rail** ways. The Left came into power with the ministry of Agostino Depretis.

The elections of the following Novem­

ber gave the new government an overwhelming majority, but significantly, the old plague of the Italian State was still in operation#

The situation of the Depretis gov­

ernment in the Fall of 1876 was precarious.

Its parlia­

mentary majority was not compact, but was split into poli­ tical tendencies more or less progressive, with a strong tincture of personal groupings.

Besides the factional

groups within the ministry itself, the chief blocs in the Chamber were those of the strong leaders Benedetto Cairoli, Crispi, and.Baccarini. The distinctively fractionee, unstable character of the Italian parliamentary system continued to display it­ self in the following years.

Marsh notes, as he had

noted throughout the preceding decade, the kaleidescopic changes in the government.

He says, in April of 1876 that

the combination which has just overthrown the Minghetti ministry is so heterogeneous in composition and so much actuated by personal considerations that there is small hope of its securing a stable parliamentary majority with1 out a new election. Again in the Fall of 1879 he reports L , ______ , 1 . Italy, Vol. XVI, Marsh, No. 598, Apr. 7, 1876.

-J

234

r

that it has proved impossible for the leaders of the various factions

I

of the majority of the Chamber to agree

upon any course of general policy.1 the situation is no better.

Seven months later

The party of the Left, now in

power, is still split, and although it has an unquestion­ able majority in the Chamber, yet it is not a consolidated majority,, nor can the ministry count upon the support of a 2 sufficient number of its own original partisans. In Nov­ ember 1880 Marsh thinks that the mihiht^r Will find itself weak enough at the opening of parliament.

He looks there­

fore for a turbulent session and sees no prospect that any beneficial measure proposed by the present administration will be sustained by a sufficient majority. The Left ministries, however, during their periods of comparative immunity from the attacks of their opponents, TZ

Italy, Vol. X V I I , Marsh, No. 855, Nov. 20,'1879. " 2 * Italy, Vol. XVIII, Marsh, No. 893, June 11, 1880. A testimony to the corruption and ineffectiveness of the Italian political system may be found in two letters of one of the original founders of the new State. Giovanni Lanza, writing to his friend the Conte Ignazio Lana, complains that "the state of parties is such as t render fruitless the efforts of any citizen who wishes to serve the general welfare... It is not possi­ ble to govern, and to secure a majority for a govern­ ment, without blandimenti and favori personal!. Oppor­ tunism and individualism invades from every side, and no one is heard if he professes the cult of the public good.11 He notes the continual decomposing and recom­ posing of groups and of factions without any political concept, but following only personal appetites and the calculations of personal advantage. nD'Azeglio,** he says, **spoke a. profound word when he said: 'Now that Italy has been made, it is necessary to make the Italians1w (Lanza to Conte Lana, Apr. 30, 1881, quoted ^■n Pttngolo di Milano, Mar. 20, 1882.) L3. Italy, Vol. XVIII, Marsh, No. 924, Nov. 9, 1880. -i

235

r-

1 achieved the following reforms:

By the legge Coomno

1

_ “I

of

•1877 a system of gratuitous and obligatory elementary edu­ cation was instituted, the parents being allowed the option of adding religious instruction

privately#

An

2 effort was made to reduce the taxes, the macinato being abolished in 1880.

The basis of the suffrage was enlarged

in 1882, and measures taken for preventing corrupt methods of voting.

The minimum age limit for voters was reduced

from 25 to 21 years.

The censo richiesto

forty to nineteen lire.

was lowered from

The military forces of the nation

were increased, two additional corps being added to the Army in 1882.

And with the launching of three new warships,

Italy took her place as a leading naval power in the Medi­ terranean, All this might have been expected to have increased the enthusiasm of the people for the government#

On the

testimony of Marsh, however, the contrary seems to have been the case, the reasons for the dissatisfaction being the same ones which he has previously and frequently described.

His despatches from 1876 to 1882 add a few new

details, but attest eloquently the fact that the govern­ ment, up to the time of Marsh*s death in the latter year, was continuing to fail in its primary duties towards the people, and the people were becoming even more antagonistic T~n

2. lJ 5 .

So called because introduced in the Chamber by the Deputy Coppino. Meal tax. Poll tax.

J

236

towards their rulers# The American Minister, in late 1877, is forced to report: At present the public peace is#., seriously threatened t>3r discontent arising from.the extreme destitution and misery into which causes opera­ tive throughout the civilized world and a domestic system of public finance warring upon industry and oppressive and extortionate to the poor has plunged at least threefifths of the.entire population of this kingdom* After the attempt on King Humbert*s life in November, 1878, Marsh speculates as to the causes of the increased Tl

2.

L

Inassigningreasons for the fall of the Right Ministry of Minghetti in November 1876, Marsh remarks the “popular sentiment of dissatisfaction with the policy of the late administration, and especially of discon­ tent with the heavy burdens of taxation imposed by it on the people® (Italy, Vol. XVI, Marsh, No. 641, Nov# 16, 1876.) In a despatch of April 1877 he develops further the reasons for popular discontent. There has just been a seditious outbreak in central and southern Italy. While discounting the theory that it consti­ tuted an organized attack on the government, the Ameri­ can minister admits that the rising has been caused partly, at least, by economic grievances. Although political unity, he says, has brought great blessings and prosperity to the upper classes, yet “the heavy taxation to which the State has been forced to resort in consequence of the wars of 1859 and 1866...has so diminished the resources and increased the burdens of the laboring poor that nothing but exceptional indus­ try, health, and economy, can enable them to sustain life in reasonable comfort; and their energies are depressed by the consciousness that they cannot depend on their own unaided efforts to better their condition.•#“ (Italy, Vol. XVI, Marsh, No. 662, Apr. 23, 1877.) He admits that “the political aspect of the situation is certainly grave11 (ibid.) Italy, Vol. XVI, Marsh, No. 713, Nov# 2, 1877.

J

237 ^"subversive movements*

One of the chief causes, he

believes, is the 18incessant attack*1 by the ’’partisans of the lately deposed rulers of the country, both lay and ecclesiastical*”^

This, we 'may surely say, means nothing

if it does not mean that, as late as this date, there was a strong sentiment in the country which favored the old regime over the new government*

We are fortified in this

conclusion by Marsh’s admission that this opposition has ”prevented the development of a feeling of loyalty to the dynasty as a rightful depository of the supreme authority, and deprived it of the reverence with which public opinion in many monarchical countries invests royalty, as in some o sort sja" sacred institution*” This statement, if it means anything, means that the House of Savoy, as late as 1878, had failed to win the devotion of the people.

And if this

was the case, where was Italian Unity in the real sense, XI 2.

L

Italy, Vol. XVII, M a r s h , T o T " 7 W 7 Nov. U S . 1878: Ibid.

:

J

238

r~

.

and where were the popular benefits of Italian Unity? The benefits?

i

Marsh writes again in 1882 of the

^extreme destitution and misery of the laboring classes, which has now become aggravated to a degree unparalleled, 2 so far as I know, in any other part of Europe. And he Tl

2.

L

it is worth noting that atthis period Italian foreign policy had an important repercussion on Italian i n t e r ­ nal politics. The first two ministries of Depretis and the first ministry of Cairoli, found Italy involved in the international questions arising out of the Turco-Russian war of 1877-1878 and the consequent dip­ lomatic re-shufflings at the Congress of Berlin, corti returned from the Congress a disappointed and disillu­ sioned man. Bismarck, who was now, on interested grounds, a good “European," had hedged on the matters of Italian compensations in North Africa and the satis­ faction of Italian irredentist claims in the Trentino. Consequently the embittered Italians watched Prussia cement an alliance in 1879 with Austria, while prance, with the quiet permission of Bismarck and Disraeli, began her infiltration into Tunis. While the accession of Italy to the Triple Alliance in 1882 somewhat improved the situation from the Quirinal!s viewpoint, yet the improvement was illusory, since the new tie brought little benefit to Italy in the field of colonial expansion, while, on the other hand, it increased Bismarck*s power of dictation in the internal affairs of the peninsula. This defeat of the Left in the arena of international diplomacy afforded new ammunition for their political opponents, and particularly the Republicans. There was even the beginning of a strange and informal alli­ ance between Leo XIII and the more moderate of the followers of Mazzini. France, too, was stimulating the opposition parties in Italy, in order to distract Crispins thoughts from Tunis. The net result was that the government of the Left, even after the political truce of trasformismo (1881) could never flatter itself that its tenure of power was secure. And a serious consequence of this uncertainty was a partial paralysis of the governmentfs strength in its internal administra­ tion of Italy. Italy, Vol. XIX, Marsh, No. 1029, June 4, 1882.

J

239 suggests a profound truth which will adequately serve to rebut the liberalsT defence that these unfortunate condi­ tions were not directly caused by* but only accidentally accompanied the fact of Unification.

At this point [he is referring back to 1876j the political institutions of Italy, though-they had apparently received their definite form, had not yet got completely into working order, nor had their action become so thoroughly a part of the common consciousness of the more or less discordant jurisdictions which had united to form a legal body politic as to exclude all danger from dis­ turbing influences. The work of unification, in other words, was never

2

fully achieved, never ngot' completely into working order,” and —

most important of all —

never became thoroughly $a

part of the common consciousness” of the nation.

And

there was a deep reason for this which Marsh himself only dimly perceived:

these discordant jurisdictions —

the

old'kingdoms, the duchies,, the provinces, the communes, and the Church -- were discordant only in the sense that they resisted absorption by an all-powerful central gov­ ernment.

1. 2.

They were not discordant elements in the real,

Italy, Vol. XIX, Marsh, No. 1029, June 4, 1882. But, the liberals may object, this is only 18821 Give the government time! Give the government a chancel There is an answer to this plea: even twenty-two years of conditions such as those described in these pages is too high a price to pay for political unity; and, in any case -- although this consideration takes us beyond the bounds of our study — the v;next forty-two years showed no substantial and permanent improvement., #*4 —J

240 historic life of Italy*

They were Italy, the historic

Italy of natural age-long development.

1/hen they were

shackled and smothered in the interests of rigid centrali­ zation, the act was unnatural, and hence unhealthy; and, in the case of one of the jurisdictions, that of the Church, a force was inhibited which an American President has called an “essential basis of democracy.11

If the

social and economic results of the Revolution were such as described by Marsh, we should be grieved, but not sur­ prised •

L

j

NOTE TO CHAPTER SEVEN The contrast between Italian and Ameri­ can principles of respect for acquired rights is revealed in a correspondence which occurred between the American Secretary of State, Hamilton Fish, and the Italian Ambas­ sador, Baron Blanc, in 1876. The Baron had requested that the Ameri­ can G-overnment withdraw the exequatur of the Pontifical Consul at the port of New York* Secretary Fish's first reply is some­ what stiff;

“Dep't. of state, Washington, Jan. 25, 1876* Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your note of the 23rd ins­ tant, and to state in reply to the inquiry it contains, that the Exequatur of the Ponti­ fical ex-Consul at New York, has not been formally withdrawn. Accept, Sir, a renewed assurance of my very high consideration...** The Baron was evidently perturbed at the unsatisfactory answer' of the American Government, and repeated the request in somehwat more urgent terms. Secretary Fish replied at greater length: **... I have t’ o express my regret that I do not feel at lib­ erty to comply with your request, especially for the reasons you assign. The functionary adverted to was appointed many years ago, long before the events which contracted to a narrow space the territory of his sovereign. This Department believes that his official and personal conduct have always been praise­ worthy. Though his functions are of merely nominal importance, it is understood that the Sovereign who bestowed his Commission has not relinquished the exercise of that right. Under these circumstances it is believed that the interests of Italy would not be materially advanced by the shock which the just sensibi­ lities of the Pontifical Consul at New York, and his friends, must experience by the sudden withdrawal of the Exequatur...** (Wash., June 24, 1876.) The Baron reiterated his request in a long note, and Secretary Fish put an end to

the correspondence with the following ful­ ler exposition of the views of the American Governmentt

ttDeprt. of State, Wash., July 18, 1876. Sir: I duly received and have taken into mature consideration your note of the 5th instant, upon the subject of the Ponti­ fical Consul at New York. The result of my reflections still is that it would be inex­ pedient for this government to cancel the exequatur of that officer for the reasons which you have assigned. You remark that Mr. Binse the Consul does not hold his com­ mission from the power which virtually exercises the ex-territorial sovereignty, C si°1 i.e., the Kingdom of Italy. In this state­ ment, however, it seems to me that you are not strictly correct. It is understood that the relations between Italy and the Vet I can CjsioJ were defined by the Italian Parliament in Its act of the 13th of May, 1871... The act is silent as to Consuls who may have been appointed previously by the Pope to reside abroad. It seems to me that if the Italian Government had deemed such officers as derogating from its just sover­ eignty, it would then have declared their commissions void and would have forbidden the Issuing of any others in future. The omission of such a provision seems to me to leave the authority of the Pope intact in regard to that subject. This appears to be confirmed by the closing paragraph of the 11th article of the Act itself, which de­ clares that the customary prerogatives and immunities pursuant to international law, shall be assured throughout the territory of the Kingdom to the Representatives of His Holiness accredited to foreign govern­ ments when they are on their way to, or shall be returning from their missions. This, implicitly, at least, acknowledges the right of the Pope to accredit representa­ tives abroad, and seems to expect that he will exercise that function... Supposing, therefore, his sovereign right in this res­ pect to be still entire, permit me to invite your attention to the unusual character of your application in this case. Exequatur's of Consuls of foreign countries are some­ times revoked for other causes of sufficient

moment and justice, but I am not aware of an instance of such, a revocation, upon the application of a foreign government. To yield to such an application would in my opinion be improper in itself, and would create a precedent which could not, in the long run, fail to be signally inconvenient to both Italy and the United States...11 The whole of the above correspondence is enclosed in: Instructions from the Department of State; Marsh; Vol. VI (Nov. £, 1875Nov. 26, 1877.)

244 r

“i

EPILOGUE It is no slight tect

task

to form, a new nation.

The archi­

who would mould a peopleto an organic likeness of its

political self, must approach his work with great reverence, and must maintain in his soul a deep respect for two invio­ lable sanctities:

the sanctity of historical growth and

the sanctity of other freedoms "besides that of the govern­ ment.

The new nation must not be created by reversing the

results of centuries of autonomous provincial and local development.

The new nation must not be built On the sup­

pression of free societies within the State. Furthermore, it

must

notbe forgotten that the nation

is, after all, being

made

forthe people.

It is so that

the people may live in greater freedom and in greater econ­ omic and social comfort that the revolution is fought, the constitutions written, and the administrative organs set up.

Xf the new nation does not bring more happiness, pros­

perity, and personal security to the people, the new nation had better not have been created.

A revolution, a national

unification, is not worth every price.

It is not worth

the price of rendering the people more wretched than they were before the flag of revolt was raised.

Washingtons,

and Garibaldis, and Bolivars are superfluous and even regrettable if they give, distress instead of betterment to their fellow countrymen. L

j

245 On these grounds the Italian Revolution of 1859-1870 stands indicted. three directions:

It was a Revolution which sinned in first, it destroyed historic sovereign­

ties which still had life in them, like the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies and the countless local and provincial auto­ nomies of Italy; second, it violated the rights of legiti­ mate societies and the Catholic Church; and, third, it injured gravely the liberty and the economic and social welfare of the common people. As to the first of the above points, we have a con­ firmation from an unimpeachable source.

Ernesto Masi,

one of the most ardent of modern apologists for the Revo­ lution, boasts rather naively that it ^succeeded because the concept was new, because it was in direct antithesis with all the historic past...1*’*' This is strange praise indeed, which the Revolution might, to its advantage, have forfeited.

We are reminded, by contrast, of the warning

of Efontesquieu that, of the many factors to be considered In governing a people, one of the most important is that / 2 of *le's exemples des choses passees.1* We are reminded of the dictum of Burke, that ^People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward .to their ancestors... Thus, by preserving the method of Nature in the conduct of Tl

Masi, il RIsorglmento Italiano, 2 vols., Florence, 1917. I, 40. Esprit des Lois, liv, XIX, chap. IV.

246 r

~t the State, in what we improve we are never wholly new, in what we retain we are never wholly obsolete.

By ad­

hering in this manner and on those principles, we are guided, not by the superstitution of antiquarians, but by the spirit of philosophic analogy.11 The

R e v o lu tio n

forgot that the old

re g im e s

w e re

not

merely absolutisms with many admitted defects; they were also historic growths; they were the natural tissue and innate fabric of Italy; they could be altered, ameliorated, developed, but they could not, without weakening mortally the very life of the nation, be abolished.

This was true

of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies; it was true of the provincial and communal bodies politic; it was true, above all, of the Church.

This truth was expressed by the Grand

Duke of Tuscany in his protest against the annexation of his territories by Sardinia: La proclamation du Royaume d ’ltalie sanctionne pour chaque Etat de la ptninsule la destruction de lrautonomieA indiv^.duelleN indispensable au bien-etre reel et a la tranquillite de l TItalie. Fondle sur les anciennes habitudes, sur la difference profonde des caracteres, sur la diversite' des interets locaux et enfin sur les belles et antiques traditions qui font la gloire de l rItalie, cette autonomie, aussi ne'cessaire^ aux popu­ lations qu'elle leur est chere, pouvait et devait se concilier avec la grandeur de l rItalie reconstitute sur un plan federatif. Tl

Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France"?

247

As to the second point, the attack on independent societies within the State, enough has been said. all-important fact is this:

The

National Liberty is a tragic

deception if based on a violation of the lawful rights of any corporate body.

Liberty is a mysteriously jealous

goddess; she exacts a strange and terrible toll if her principles are not applied with >a consistency scrupulous and just.

She will not smile on a nation and lead it to

peace and greatness unless the nation grants freedom to all, even to those whom it regards as obscurantist. And, of all societies, the Church is the one which a Liberal State needs most.

!tIn a modern civilization,11 it

has been said by a great American, !treligionand democracy complement each other.

Where*freedom of religion has been

attacked, the attack has come from sources opposed to democracy... An ordering of society which relegates reli­ gion and democracy to the background can find no place within it for the ideals of the Prince of Peace.11 As to the third point, also —

the evil effects

brought on the people of Italy by the change of 18591870 -- sufficient proof, it would seem, has been adduced. The people were' never given a chance to say whether they wanted the Revolution.^,

twenty years after its victory the

people still did not want the Revolution; and, considering 1.

L

Franklin D. Roosevelt, Address to Congress on the State of the Union, Jan."4, 1939.. J

248 r

the evidence of the preceding pages as to what the Revo­ lution brought the people, this disinclination is not dif­ ficult to understand. Europe was not the gainer by the formation of the 1 Greater Italy. A philosophic statesman expressed the fact profoundly.

The peace and stability of Europe, he

said, depends on the maintenance of the European Balance of Power; not a mere superficial, pragmatic balance, but a deeper one based on two grand principles —

that of the

general interest of Europe as opposed to the particular interests of any single state, and, as a necessary means to that end, the principle of the independence of small nations.

The Kingdom of Italy, says Thiers, was built on

the ruins of the

independence of the small nations (for

they were, indeed, such) of the peninsula.

It was a mons­

trous phoenix which sprang not from the ashes, but from the still-living bodies of political organisms.

The an­

nexation of Naples in 1860 was not a reproduction of the American Declaration of Independence; it was a foreshadow­ ing of the Munich Declaration of 1939.

The result of

these acts was the creation of an aggressive new Power State, and, when It dame into being, the deeper Equilibrium of Europe was gone. These conclusions, it is submitted, are confirmed by 1^

L

Adolphe Thiers, speaking before" the French Chamber in 1867. j

249 r-

the American testimony analyzed in the present study.

"1

When they wrote their despatches, the American ministers could not have foreseen that we would he reading them almost a century later in the midst of a supreme strug­ gle against the New Italy and her allies.

They could not

have foreseen this, but they have unconsciously given us encouragement; for they hatre revealed, whether deliberately or not,the counterfeit Liberalism of Cavour’s liberal and have shown, in contrast, the American reality.

L

J

250

APPENDIX I The Clericals’ insistence on the difference between Italian and American principles of free government was con­ tinued throughout the ’seventies.

A

writer In the Civilfa Cattolica in 1876 pointed out the contrast with consider­ able force.

Some of the more signifi­

cant passages of the article, as a final commentary on Italian liberalism judged by the American standard, are worth quoting here."*-

w0ne of the strongest arguments which the Liberals are accustomed to use in their favor is the example of the United States of America

But the

argument is specious, and can be used against the Liberals, for on closer examination the undeniable fact is revealed that the greatness and prosper­ ity of that nation is due to the fact that she has been formed...on principles ^ll Liberalismo e gli Stati Unit! di America,1’ Civilta Cattolica, Ser. IX, Vol. IX (1876), pp. 272-286, 529-240.

altogether opposed to those professed by il moderno Liberalismo....

(p. 272*)

The Civilta writer recommends the following work as a luminous guide in /

this matter:

Claude Jannet, Les Etats-

Unis contemporains; Les Moeurs, les Institutions et les Idees depuis la guerre de secession, Paris, 1876.

The

\

object of the civilta article is to show from Jannet’s book, ’’written after an attentive observation of the exist­ ing facts,” that "the example of the United States of America, far from favoring Liberalism, is a manifest con­ demnation of Liberalism” (p. 273.)

The

following is the Civilta writer’s analy­ sis of the above work:

"■The American Constitution never pretended to give a code of rights and of duties to the private individual and to the citizen.

Rather, it supposed

both the one and the other, and occupied itself solely with determining the laws that grew out of the new conditions of things

in 1787*

It did not consider

the society as organizing itself from head to foot, and dissolving itself into its primary organic elements; hut, rather, it considered the society as already subsisting in its organic parts, with its traditions and its rights of individual liberty, of freedom of prop­ erty, of family, of religion, and sought only to create a new unity, and to break the bond which connected the society with the old center Ijlngland^J

Instead

of proceeding a priori, and as from a tabula rasa, the Constitution, on the contrary, limited itself to regulating the relations between living and organic beings, |i.e., the States^ and organized them into a Union which respected the existing State Constitutions. "As to the organization of those powers, in no way did the American Con­ stitution follow the principles of the Liberal Revolution.

The latter seeks

to make numbers prevail, the former seeks to guarantee the prevalence of right and justice.

Par from favoring the sover­

eignty of the people, Washington and the

253 ~i

r authors of the Federal Constitution wished to establish a government of checks and balances

governo di contrap-

pesi , in which none of the powers would be able to pretend to be the sole rep­ resentative of the popular will, and in which the rights of the minority would be secure from the attacks of the majority" (pp. 278-279.) 11But the great safe-guard given to the minority is the strong organization and independence of the judicial power. The claim of unconstitutionality can, in effect, be moved at any time in an appeal to the Federal Courts.

The Con~

stitution prohibits to the States the passage of retroactive criminal laws, or laws that alter or destroy rights acquired in virtue of a contract.

When­

ever a citizen feels that he has been wronged by the application of such a law, he appeals to the Federal Courts*1 (p. 280.) 1.

L

Much more could, of course, be said on this point, and the author quoted does not describe Washington*s atti­ tude with complete accuracy. It seems too bold to say that the Federalist Party denied the **sovereignty of the people,although it is certainly true that they detested the wnumerical majority1* standard of the Jeffersonians. J

”The sole respect in which that Constitution might seem to be in con­ formity with the principles of modern Liberalism, is in its sanction of absol­ ute liberty of conscience and of cult. But, on a careful consideration, this is precisely the point where lies the great difference between that Constitu­ tion and the principles of modern Liber­ alism. MIn the United States this full liberty of cult was given, not as result ing from natural,right, as the Liberals teach, but, rather, as a political neces sity arising out of the fact that many different religious professions existed in the country at the same time.

The

liberty of cult was given really as an act of justice towards the Catholics* until that time oppressed and persecuted This fact was used as an argument by Benjamin Franklin to win the French alliance at the beginning of the Revo­ lution” (p. 281.) ”And the Church knew how to profit

from such a benefit.

In less than a

century it has obtained in that country a marvelous progress.

The religious

orders are very numerous, and, thanks to the complete liberty which, In respect to the civil power, they enjoy, the American Catholic clergy has been pecu­ liarly free from heresy” (pp. 281-282.) 11The bishops, nominated directly by the Pope, without any interference from the Governmeht, are ipso facto recognized as such.

They acquire and

administer freely their properties, in their quality of bishops.

The Catholics

profess freely their religion, and, equally with others, have full liberty of association and of foundation. ”Civil personality is conceded to parishes and to congregations of what­ ever denomination.

There are even some

States where it suffices that a Christian association should have an organic regolamento in order to be with full legal­ ity considered as a corporation enjoying civil existence” (p. 283.)

''Finally, for a fuller understand­ ing of the fact that here in the United States religious liberty is a reality and not, as under the Liberal govern­ ments, a lie, recall the sentence given in 1873 by the court of Appeals of Kentucky in regard to the libel plea brought by a certain Hucas on account of an excommunication inflicted on him by his pastor. Court reads:

The sentence of the ’The Court is not able to

examine whether the Church has acted rightly or wrongly in excommunicating Lucas; since the Court is incompetent and without power to repair the wrong which the appelant claims he has sus­ tained. Once become a member of that Church, he has spontaneously submitted himself to her authority, and no tribu­ nal on earth can examine the acts of the ecclesiastical jurisdiction.*

Might it

not be well to send Bismarck, as well as the honorable gentlemen of Montecitorio to the school of the American jurisconsults?” (p. 283.) ”The laws dispense from military

257

service the ministers of religion.

All

taxes on churches or ecclesiastical property are'ne;gard;ecl as unconstitutional. The law defends, on occasion, the inter­ nal discipline of the Church.

If a

member of a congregation or of a parish refuses to pay the tax fixed by the regu­ lations of his church, the magistrate forces him to do so,” (p. 285.)

After some further observations on the difference between the Italian and American concept of parliamentary govern­ ment, the Civilta article concludes with this statement:; ffIn such wise is the American Bepublic the model of true popular lib­ erty, and she has been able to prosper and flourish with an uninterrupted progressn (p. 286.)

f« u



APPENDIX II The following are brief biographi­ cal sketches of those of the American ministers-vwhoae testimony is quoted more frequently in this study.

These vltgg

suggest that the witnesses on whose ■credibility:

we have relied so heavily

were of no mediocre calibre intellectu­ ally, and of no mean standing in the eyes Of their contemporaries.

Chandler, Joseph R ., b. at Phila­ delphia, Pa., 1792, d. 1880.

Educated

at University of Pennsylvania.

Con­

ducted for several years, beginning in 1815, a young ladies1 academy in Phila­ delphia.

In 1822 became editorial

writer on the Gazette of the United States^ celebrated Federalist organ, which he ultimately purchased and mer­ ged with the North American, which he edited until 1847.

From October 1843

till December 1849 he edited also Graham* s American Monthly Magazine of Literature, Art, and Fashion.

He was

259

President of the first board of directors of Girard College,

In 1849 was elected

to House of Representatives as a Clay Whig. Published a book on English grammar for elementary schools.

In 1847 published

essay ttOutline of Penology** at request of Social Science Association of Phila­ delphia •

Daniel, John M .., b. in Stafford Co*, Va., 1825, d. 1865.

Privately educated,

studied law, and in 1845 became librarian of a small public library in Richmond. In 1847 joined staff of Richmond Examiner, organ of radical wing of the Democratic party.

As a result of expressions con­

tained therein was obliged to fight sev­ eral duels.

Close friend of Theodore

Parker and of Edgar Allen Poe.

In 1853

was appointed minister to Sardinia, ser­ ving there till 1860.

Returned to

United States at beginning of Civil War and served on staff of Confederate Gen­ eral A. P. Hill. ist.

Was a fiery secession­

Edited Richmond Examiner from

1861 till his death* L

Is regarded as j

one of the two or three most celebrated journalists in the history of the South. He was an eccentric and not noted for his tact.

The latter failing placed

him in bad odor with the Sardinian Gov­ ernment on account of his breach of eti­ quette at a court ball at Turin.

This

fact must be remembered in adjudging the value of his testimony, but the present writer is unconvinced that it seriously injures the value of that testimony,

Jackson, Henry R ., b. at Athens, Ga., 1828, d. 1898.

ttLawyer, soldier,

editor, diplomat1* (Diet. Amer. Blog., art. ^senson.**) (His father had been secretary to'.Wm. H. Crawford, our minis­ ter to Prance.)

Graduated from Yale

College in 1839 with honors.

Studied

law and practiced at Savannah, Ga. Before he was 24 years old was appointed (1843) a United States district attor­ ney.

Served as colonel in Mexican War.

For a brief period in 1848-1849 was one of the editors of the Savannah Georgian.

In 1849 received appointment to bench of Superior Court, where he served till 1853.

He resigned this post to accept

appointment as minister to Austria, where he served till 1858.

On his re­

turn from Europe he was offered chan­ cellorship of University of Georgia, but declined the honor.

For nearly

twenty-five years was president of Georgia Historical Society.

In 1885

President Cleveland appointed him minis­ ter to Mexico, from which post he resigned in 1886 due to a disagreement with his Government over .the case of Rebecca, an

American ship seized by

Mexican government on a smuggling charge•

Jones, Jehu G ., b. Berks Co., Pa., d. 1878.

In 1847-1849 was Deputy

Attorney-General for Berks Co., Pa. Democratic Representative from Pennsyl­ vania in 32nd, 33rd, 34th, and 35th Con­ gresses, serving with short interval from 1850 to 1858.'

During this Congress

service was chairman of committee on

262

ways and means.

Was our minister to

Austria, November 1858 to

December

1861.

Kinney, Wm. B ., b. 1799 at Speed­ well, Morris Co., N. J., d. 1880. Studied law under guidance of Joseph C. Hornblower, who was later Chief Justice of New Jersey.

Gave up law, entered

the field of journalism, and later became editor of New Jersey Eagle, a Newark weekly.

In 1825 became literary

adviser of Harper and Bros*

Was active

in the founding of the Mercantile Library, and served for a time as head librarian of that institution.

In 1835 became

editor of Newark Dally Advertiser, at that period the only daily paper in the state.

In politics a staunch Whig.

Appointed by President Taylor charge d'affaires to Sardinia in April 1850, and held that office till October 1853. After expiration of his term of office he remained in Europe.

Became- an intim­

ate friend of the Brownings at Florence. Began the writing of a history of the

Medici family but did not live to com­ plete the w©rk*

Marsh, George P ., b. 1801 at Woodstock, Vt., d. 1882 in Italy. ist and philogist.

Diplomat­

Graduated from

Dartmouth College in 1820.

Studied law

in Burlington, Vt., and in 1835 was elected to the State Legislature and became member of the Supreme Executive Council of the state.

From 1843 to

1849 was a Whig member of Congress, and in the latter year resigned to become our Minister Resident at Constantinople. In 1852 he was charged with a special Government mission to Greece, and having traveled extensively in Europe returned to United States in 1854.

Between 1857

and 1859 served as railroad commissioner for Vermont.

From 1861 until his death

was United states minister to the King­ dom of Italy.

Published several

scholarly works, e.g., The Origin and History of the English Language, (1862), and Man and Nature (1864.)

Morris, Edward J ., b* Philadelphia, Pa., 1815, d. 1877, Author. Harvard University., 1815.

Graduate of Studied law

in Philadelphia and admitted to bar in 1842.

In the meanwhile had been elec­

ted to the State Assembly, where he ser­ ved during period 1841-1843.

Sleeted

to congress as Whig in 1844.

Was in

Congress again from 1856 to 1858.

In

1861 was appointed by President Lincoln minister to Turkey, where he remained during nine years.

Frequent contribu­

tor of travel articles to periodicals. .Minister to Naples.

Niles, Nathaniel, b. 1791 at South Kingston, R. I., d. 1869*

Graduated

from Harvard Medical School in 1816. Practiced medicine for several years in Boston, then went to Paris for fur­ ther study.

There he married the accomp­

lished French lady Mme. Rosella Sue, widow of Fr. Sue, physician to Louis XVIIL.

When Wm. C. Rives, American

minister at Paris, resigned in 1830, he left Niles In charge of the

legation.

Niles was officially appointed

secretary of the legation in November 1830, and remained there till 1833.

In

1837 he was made special diplomatic agent to Austria-Hungary, with the aim of secu­ ring a market for American tobacco. Was praised by the State Department for his execution of this assignment.

He was

our first minister to Sardinia, and on November 26, 1838, concluded a most-favorednation treaty of commerce between the United States and that country, an agreement which lasted till 1871.

Polk, Win. H., b. 1815 at Maury Co., Tenn., d. 1862.

Brother of President

James K. Polk.

Educated at University

of Tennessee.

Admitted to bar in 1839,

practiced law in Columbia, Tenn.

Elected

to State Legislature in 1841, and again in 1843.

Served in Mexican War as Major.

Delegate to Nashville Convention in 1850 and a Representative in 32nd Congress, 1851 to 1§53.

Strongly opposed seces­

sion movement.

Appointed charge ^ a f ­

faires to Kingdom of Two Sicilies in

1845 and remained there till outbreak of Mexican War.

Stiles, Wm. H ., b. 1808 at Savannah, Ga., d. 1865.

Lawyer and Congressman.

In 1833 was elected Solicitor-General of eastern district

of his native state.

A Representative in Congress from 1843 to 1845.

In 1857 was prominently men­

tioned as candidate for Governor of Georgia.

In May 1858 was delegate from

Georgia to the commercial congress held at Montgomery.

Delegate to Democratic

Convention of June 1860.

Honorary A.M.

degree conferred on him in 1837 by Yale College.

Author of History of Austria,

published in 1852. Civil War.

Was Colonel in

Minister to Austria, May

1845 to October 1849.

Throop, Enos T ., b. 1784 at Johns­ town, Montgomery Co., N. Y., d. 1874. Lawyer.

Congressman in 1814, and”soon

acquired a thorough knowledge of legis­ lation, and by his talents and industry and his elevated character gained a

prominent posit ton** (art.,,Throop,w Diet. Am. Blog.)

In 1823 appointed

to office of circuit judge.

Was

Acting Governor of New York from 1828 to 1831, and Governor from 1831 to 1833.

Nominated for third

term hut refused..

Was naval officer

at port of New York from 1833 to 1838, when President Van Buren made him charg^ d Taffaires to the King­ dom of the Two Sicilies.

267 b

r

~1

NOTE TO BIBLIOGRAPHY

The following bibliography includes only those works or articles refer­ ring immediately to the text of this study, either by specific page reference or as immediate background for the text, Supplement'ary or gen­ erally useful works or articles men­ tioned in the course of the study are not indicated here.

L

ZJ

268 BIBLIOGRAPHY Primary Sources Unprinted: Official The National Archives, Washington, E>. C. ,

United States Department of State. Despatches of American M i n i s t e r s .

Naples, Vol. I (Nov. 7, 1831June 24, 1845.) Naples, Vol. II,(July 26, 1845Sept. 20, 1858.) Italy, Vol. Ill, Two Sicilies (June 21, "1858May 22, 1861.) Sardinia, Vol. IV (June 6, 1840May 6, 1848.) Sardinia, Vol. V (Jan. 28, 1848Oct. 10, 1853.) Sardinia, Vol. VI (June 5, 1853June 30, 1859.) Italy, Vol. VII (July 12, 1859Feb. 5, 1861.) Italy, Vol. X (Apr. 3, 1861Dec • 1, 1863.) Italy, Vol. XI (Jan. 1, 1864Oct. 8, 1867.) Italy, Vol. XII (Oct. 28, 1867Dec. 31, 1869.) Italy, Vol. XIII (Nov. 6, 1869Sept. 28, 1871.) Italy, Vol. XIV (Oct. 1, 1871Dec. 31, 1873.) Italy, Vol. XV (Jan. 1, 1874July 15, 1876.) j

269 Italy, Vol. XVI (Aug. 7, 1876-Dec. 1, 1877.) Italy, Vol. XVII (Dec. 12, 1877-Dec. 31, 1879.) Italy, Vol. XVIII (Jan. 1, 1880-July 27, 1881.) Italy, Vol. IX (Aug. 1, 1881July 31, 1883.) Venice, Vol. I (Dec. 15, 1830“ Nov. 1, 1853), Consular Reports. Venice, Vol. II (Jan. 6, 1854Oct. 5, 1856), Consular Reports. Genoa, Vol. V (Jan. 1, 1852Dec. 31, 1857), Consular Reports. Austria, Vol. I (June 22, 1838Sept. 18, 1840.) Austria, Vol. II (May 9, 1845Oct. 15, 1849.) Austria, Vol. Ill (Feb. 15, 1850-Nov. 25, 1854.) Austria, Vol. IV (Dec. 6, 1854June 1, 1858.) Austria, Vol. V (Nov. 13, 1858Dec. 28, 1861.) Austria, Vol. VI (Aug. 14, 1861* Dec. 22, 1863.) Austria, Vol. VII (Jan. 16, 1864-Dec. 26, 1865.)

270 Austria, Vol. VIII (Jan. 8, 1'866-June 15, 1867.) Prance, Vol. XXXXVII (May 14, 1860-Sept. 27, 1860.) France, Vol. L (Mar. 22, 1861Oct. 29, 1861.) France, Vol. LIV (Oct. 23, 1863June 8, 1864.) France, Vol. LV (June 10, 1864Nov. 29, 1864.) France, Vol. LVI (Dec. 2, 1864Apr. 4, 1865.) France, Vol. LXIII (Aug. 24, “ 1867-May 25, 1868.) Prussia, Vol. X (Feb. 16, 1847Aug. 11, 1857.) Prussia, Vol. XI (Feb. n.d. 1856-June 25, 1861.) Prussia, Vol. XII (May 1, 1861Dec. 28, 1863.) Prussia, Vol. XIII (Jan. 12, 1864-Dec. 31, 1866.) Prussia* Vol* XIV (Jan. 1, 1867-May 9, 1868.) Prussia, Vol. XV (May 11, 1868Sept. 28, 1869.) Prussia, Vol. XVI (Oct. 4, 1869-June 21, 1870.)

L

J

271

Foreign Archives. Uni ted States Legation at Home. Letters from Minister of Foreign Affairs and Prefect of Palace to George P. Marsh, from May 25, 1861 to Jan. 23, 1868, VoIT"I, SerlaT No.~T22. Foreign Archives. U. S. Lega­ tion at Home. Letters from MYnTster of Foreign Affairs, and OfficiaT Memoranda of Geo. P. Marsh, from June 186T to Oct.

TS'SST VcT7"l7^rIiTlToT 112. For. Arch. Letters from Min, of For. Aff., from Jan.,24, 1868 to Dec. 31,1870, Vol. II, Serial No. 123. For. Arch. Letters and Memor­ anda to the Minister of Foreign Affairs by Geo. P. Marsh, Minis­ ter Plenipotentiary to the King­ dom of Italy, from Oct. 6, 1866 to 4og. 10, 1871, Vol. II, Serial No. 143. For. Arch. Letters to Min. of For. Aff. from Aug. XT, 1871 TcT~Mar. 267~T ^ 7 U 7 voTT iTTT" Serial No. 144. For. Arch. Notes to the Minis­ try of For. Aff. from Apr. 3, 1879 to Nov. 8, 1882, Vol. IV, Serial No. 145. Instructions from the Depart­ ment of Stater Marsh: 'Vol. VI T N o v . T / 1875-Nov. 26, 1877.) Secondary Irorks General Works Artz, Frederick B. ,

L

Heaction and Hevolution, 18141852 (The Rise of Modern Europe, ed. Wra.. L. Danger), (3rd ed.), New York-London, Harper & Bros., 1939. J

272

r

Berkeley, G.F.-H. and J.,

Italy in the Making, froin 1815 to 1846, Cambridge! University Press, 1932.

Bianchi, Nicomede (ed.),

La politique du comte Camille He" Cavour ae ld52 a T 86l, Lettre's inedites avec notes, Turin, •Roux et Favale, 188B1

Blanchi, Nicomede,

Storia documentata della diplomazia Europea in Italia dall* anno 1814 all* anno 1861, 8 V vols., Ti?urin-Naples, &ocieta L fUnione Tipografico-Editrice, 1870.

Robert C.,

Realism and Nationalism, 1852** 1871 (The R is e ? o f Modern Europe, ed. iliftn. L. Langer), New YorkLondon, Harper & Bros., 1935.

Carpi, Leone (ed.),

II glsorgimenfco Italiano; biograf xe storxco-polltiche driTlustri italiani contemporane1, per cura dl Leone Carpi, collaboratori i plu chiari scrittori italiani, Milan, prancesco Vallardi, 1884.

Carpi, Leone,

L TItalia vivente; dlnascTtg e deT denaro; borghesia - clero - burocrazia; studi social!, Milan, Francesco Vallardi, 1875.

Colletta, Pietro,

Storia del geame di Napoli dal 1734 sino al 1825, 4 vols., Capolago, I§34.

D e l Sivo, Giacinto,

Storia delle Due Sicilie dal 1847 al 1861, 5 vols., Rome, Txpografla Salviucci, 18631867.

Farini, Luigi Carlo, (trans. Wm. Gladstone),

The Roman State from 1815 to 1850, 2 Vols., London, John Murray, 1852.

Gori, Agostino,

II Bisorgimento Italiano (Storia Politics d*Italia), Milan, Francesco Vallardi, n.d. preface by Gori dated 1904.

L

J

273

*King, Bolton,

A History of "Italian Unity, being^ £ Politi'caT~History of Italy from 1814 to 1871, 2 vols., (4th impres­ sion) , London, Nisbet & Co*, 1934*

Masi, Ernesto,

II Italiano, 2 vols., Florence, G. C* Sansoni, 1917.

Massari, Giuseppe,

La Vita ed il Regno di Vittorio Emanuele II di Savoia, (2nd ed.), 2 vols., Elan, Fratelli Treves, 1878.

Matter, Paul,

Cavour et l tunite/ italienne, 3 vols., Paris, F. Alcan, 1922-27.

Mazziotti, Matteo,

La reazione borbonlca nel regno di Napoli Copisodl dal 1849 al 1860j/Biblioteca Storica del Risorgimento Italiano), Milan, Albrighi, Segatji e C., 1912.

Natali, Giulio,

Idee, jjosfcumi, uomini del settecento; studii/f 6 aaggiT~letterari'i, Turin, ^ocieth tipografico