Abstract
Of all the European states in diplomatic relations with the Holy See at this period, France was without doubt the one which set the pace for the others in the determination of a policy to be followed in regard to the Pope after the occupation of Rome. All eyes turned to France, not simply because that country by its traditions seemed likely to assume the natural leadership, but because Italy’s decision to march on Rome was in flagrant and admitted violation of a treaty of which France was a signatory and by which Italy undertook “not to attack the present territory of the Holy Father and to prevent, even by force, every attack coming from without against the said territory” (Convention of September 15, 1864). France had, in fact, for several decades reversed the role of Napoleon I and had been guarantor of the Temporal Power of the Popes. It was through France particularly that the Pope had had it restored to him or preserved on several occasions. And it was the withdrawal of the French garrison from Rome and Civita Vecchia at the beginning of August that had been the signal for the Italian patriots to consummate the unity of Italy by force.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Such inspired rumors were chronic. Thus on February 3, 1871 the governmental mouthpiece, l’Opinione, quoted the Daily Telegraph of January 30 as saying it had been announced in Florence (where the Opinione was published) that Prussia would recall von Arnim from Rome and would invest Count Brassier de St. Simon with the double quality of representative of Germany to the Court of the King and to that of the Pope. It adds that the Marquis de Montemar on his return to his post after having accompanied Queen Victoria to Madrid, would be accredited as representative of Spain to the Court of Italy and that of the Vatican. These transparently tendentious reports predicted events that were never to take place; and one can be justified in assuming that they had no other foundation than the hopes of the government in Florence.
Documents Diplomatiques Français. I série. Tome 1, n. 23. p. 44. Nigra forwarded the original document to Visconti-Venosta, stating that a protest of this nature should normally have been addressed to the foreign minister in any case.
A. E. Fr. Rome. T. 1056.
The Fournier-Bourgoing feud was made conspicuous by the public and private statements of the minister to the Quirinal, which were often offensive to the Pope. Cf. Correspondance de Genève, 1872, n. 154.
Souvenirs de Carrière, p. 101.
Journal Officiel de la République Française, 16, 1873, p. 294–296.
Cf. Correspondance de Genève, 1873, n. 80, June 20.
Niboyet resumes the parliamentary history of the question of the Vatican mission up to 1904 in l’Ambassade de France au Vatican (1870–1904), p 30–52.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1951 Springer Science + Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Graham, R.A. (1951). The Policy of France. In: The Rise of the Double Diplomatic Corps in Rome. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-1023-3_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-1023-3_4
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-015-0409-6
Online ISBN: 978-94-015-1023-3
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive