Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Unification of Italy

  • Chapter
The Roman Question and the Powers, 1848–1865

  • 53 Accesses

Abstract

The decision of France to remain in Rome after the expedition of the thousand redshirts was inevitable, but it was reluctantly admitted. The emperor would halt the French withdrawal, Thouvenel told Cowley, “at this critical moment,” because he “would be exposed... to great attacks and perhaps unjust suspicions.”1

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Cowley to Russell, Paris, 18 May 1862, Arch. dip. (1861), I, 432–433. The papacy was informed a week later that although the emperor had not changed in his desire to evacuate papal territory, the question of the pope’s security necessitated a temporary suspension of the agreement for evacuation. The plea of necessity was repeated on 2 June, that Thouvenel did not expect France would increase its garrison (Thouvenel to Cadore, Paris, 29 May 186o, AMAE, CP, Rome, 1o14: 216; same to same, Paris, 2 June 186o, ibid., 226.

    Google Scholar 

  2. London Times, 12 July 186o. La Moricière turned to the doubtful expedient of enlisting members of the French garrison in his army (Keller, II, 333–334). Goyon was sympathetic, but more discreet. His request that the French garrison be augmented, or “at least” that it be preserved “such as it is today,” received a sharp reply from the minister of war, Randon. The emperor, Randon replied, was “perfectly decided not to increase the forces…” (Randon to Goyon, Paris, 23 May 186o, Archives Militaires, Château de Vincennes, Correspondance du ministre [hereafter cited as Randon papers], G° 35)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Randon to Goyon, Paris, 13 June 186o, Randon papers, G° 35. “I had this declaration in my possession,” concluded the marshal, “written by the very hand of the emperor the tenth of February last, on the occasion of your new demands for an increase of effectives. I said to you that the firm will of the emperor repulsed all such combinations; I had the honor to write to you in the same sense the 26th of the same month; finally, my letter of 29 May insisted upon this point in particular that His Majesty was perfectly decided not to increase the forces presently at your disposal.”

    Google Scholar 

  4. Sacconi to Antonelli, Paris. 14 July 186o, Pirri, Question, 272.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Gramont to Thouvenel, Rome, 21 July 186o, AMAE, CP, Rome, 1015: 4o. Once Garibaldi gained Naples, Thouvenel told Cowley, Italy, “with the exception of the city of Rome, which the emperor was determined to defend for the pope,” would be overwhelmed by Garibaldi and his troops, “and soon it would be in the power of neither Cavour or anyone else to prevent an attack on Venetia” (Cowley to Russell, Paris, 24 July 186o, Further correspondence, LXVI, pt. 7, no. x55 ).

    Google Scholar 

  6. Charles H. Pouthas, “La médiation de Napoléon III entre le roi de Naples, les Siciliens et le gouvernement Piémontais (mai-août 186o),” Rassegna storica del Risorgimento [October—December 1952 ], XXXIX, 762–779. Pirri, Questione, 280–281.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Bach to Rechberg, Rome, 27 July 1860, copy, HHSA, PA, XX, Spanien, 201: 655.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Napoleon III to Pius IX, Paris, 28 July 1860, Pirri, Documenti, 19o.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Antonelli to Sacconi, Rome, 7 August 186o, SA V, seg. di stato, anno 1860, 165: 44.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Palmerston to Russell, 94 Piccadilly, 17 May 1860; 15 June 1860, PRO 30/22/21. The opinion was widely circulated among the diplomatic corps at Paris that the “English had acted since the return of Palmerston in one determined design, that of founding to the south of France a large state which will serve them as a counterweight [to France]” (Baron Beyens, Le Second Empire vu par un diplomate belge [Paris, 1924], I, 190). Such an aggrandizement of Piedmont did not betoken a nation-state, since Palmerston, like Russell, followed the policy of dualism: Italy liberalized, Piedmont maintaining its statuto fondamentale, the Bourbons of Naples holding their throne against the threats of the republicans, the greed of the Sardinians, the self-seeking operations of the Muratist pretenders (H. C. F. Bell, Lord Palmerston [London, 1936 ], II, 266 ).

    Google Scholar 

  11. The Bourbons of Naples seem determined to be faithless to the end,“ Russell wrote his ambassador at Naples. ”The trick about evacuating Sicily shall be the last that they shall play me“ (Russell to Elliot, F.O., 6 August 1860, PRO 30/22/111).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Napoleon undertook to answer the question by writing on the margin of Sacconi’s letter words which were doubtless significant for the foreign minister alone, since they implied that France’s obligation in any eventuality would not extend beyond Rome ( Lynn M. Case, “Thouvenel et les relations diplomatiques,” Revue d’histoire moderne et contemporaine [April—June 1960 ], 159–160 ).

    Google Scholar 

  13. Thouvenel to Gramont, Paris, 18 Aug. r86o, AMAE, CP, Rome, 1015: 108–109.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Sacconi to Antonelli, Paris, 14 August 1860, Pirri, Questione, 276.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Augustus Craven, Lord Palmerston, sa correspondance intime pour servir d l’histoire diplomatique de l’Europe de 1830 d r865 (Paris, 1879 ), II, 589.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Russell to Palmerston, 14 July í86o, Palmerston papers.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Russell to Cowley, 26 July z86o, Arch. dip. (1861), 439–440.

    Google Scholar 

  18. D’Azeglio to Cavour, London, 30 July 1860, confidential, CXCI, Turin Archives, Legation of London, V II.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Napoleon III to Persigny, St. Cloud, 25 July r86o, PRO RP 30/22/62; Arch. Nat., Cerçay papers, 45 AP, r, AB X IX, 1510.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Mülinen to Rechberg, Paris, 2 Sept. 186o, HHSA, PA, IX, Frankreich, 66: 438. The Austrian envoy’s account of Cavour’s interpretation was delayed and passed through several hands, from Brassier de St. Simon, to Reuss, to Mülinen himself.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Cavour to D’Azeglio, 12 July 186o, N. Bianchi, La politique du comte de Cavour de 1852 d 1861 (Turin, 1855 ), 370.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Note on Umbria and the Marches, circa 1 June z86o, AMAE, Mémoires et documents, Naples, 1851–1863, XV, fol. 124; Russell to Hudson, 7 July 186o, PRO FO 67/257/140.

    Google Scholar 

  23. L. C. Bollea, “Camillo Cavour e la spedizione delle Marche,” Il Risorgimento italiano (19x7), X, 206.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Pepoli to Durando, Paris, 15 August 186o, telegram, Museo del Risorgimento, Turin, Archivo Durando (henceforth cited as Durando papers), 16/126/104.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Mülinen to Rechberg, Paris, 29 August 186o, HHSA, IX, Frankreich, 66, II, fol. 416.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Russell to Cowley, 20 August 186o, PRO RP 30/22/104.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Tavallini, 114–115.

    Google Scholar 

  28. See also Le carte di Giovanni Lanza, volume V (1870 gennaio-agosto), ed., De Vecchi di Val Cismon [Turin, 1938], 7.

    Google Scholar 

  29. For an example of this effort to manage the disparate opinions of the Destra, see Lanza to Cadorna, r August 186o and Lanza to Castelli, ro August 1860, cited by Tavallini, I, 245246,247–248.

    Google Scholar 

  30. L. Carpi, Il Risorgimento italiano, biografie storico-politiche (Milan, 1884 ), II, 319–321.

    Google Scholar 

  31. It was not the love of Naples, but the fear of French expansion, the apparent decision of Piedmont to cede more territory to France in order to expand in Italy, which dictated English policy (Palmerston to Russell, 94 Piccadilly, 17 May 1860, PRO 30/22/21.

    Google Scholar 

  32. b G. Mollat, La question romaine de Pie VI d Pie XI, 322; Pirri Questione, 293; Hudson to Russell, Turin, 7 September 1860, private, PRO RP 30/22/66.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Gramont to an unspecified general, Rome, 7 September 1860, telegram, copy, HHSA, PA, Frankreich, IX, 66, II, fol. 78. It is not possible that Gramont’s note was addressed to Goyon, since this general was still at Paris on a period of enforced leave, because of personal differrences with Gramont.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Paul Matter, Cavour et l’unité italienne (Paris, 1927 ), III, 38o - 381.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Bollea, “Cavour e la spedizione,” 212; Lynn M. Case, Franco-Italian relations, 186o-1865 (Philadelphia, 1932), 10–18, passim.

    Google Scholar 

  37. I Napoleon III to Thouvenel, 3o August 186o, II: oo AM, telegram, AMAE, Mémoires et documents, Italie, XXXVI, 485.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Comte de Beust, Trois quarts de siècle, mémoires du comte de Beust, ancien chancelier de l’Empire d’Autriche-Hongrie (Paris, 1888 ), I, 202–203.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Napoleon III to Thouvenel, Marseilles, 8 September 186o, L. Thouvenel, Le secret, I, 192.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Je tiens de bonne source (wrote Mülinen) que la note du Moniteur a été changée au dernier moment. On a supprimé la réhabilitation… fait? et les mots: Patrimoine de St. Pierre, qui auraient peut-être été confondus avec “État de l’Église” (Mülinen to Rechberg, Paris, I October 186o, telegram, HHSA, PA, IX, Frankreich, 66: Io2). But Mülinen inadvertently corrected his unfinished and inaccurate line above when he sent a subsequent despatch, citing then the published note of 3o September: “Une récapitulation des faits” (same to same, ibid., 66: 9). The point of the note, like Mülinen’s analysis, was clear enough, that the French government had endeavored for a month in its official and published correspondence to show a difference between the State of the Church and the Patrimony of St. Peter.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Napoleon III to Thouvenel, Marseilles, 8 September r86o, AMAE, Mémoires et Documents, Italie, XXXVI, 286.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Same to same, Marseilles, 9 September z86o, ibid., 490.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Ibid., ro September 186o, 492.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Carpi, I, 83.

    Google Scholar 

  45. r Thouvenel to Gramont, Paris, 9 September 1860, L. Thouvenel, Le secret, I, 187–188.

    Google Scholar 

  46. z Napoleon III to Thouvenel, Toulon, xi September 1860, AMAE, Mémoires et documents, Italie, XXXVI, 497.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Same to same, Nice, 12 September 1860, ibid., 560.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Thouvenel to Napoleon III, Paris, 12 September 1860, ibid., 499; Thouvenel to Talley-rand, Paris, 13 September 1860, Arch. dip. (1861), I, 380.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Talleyrand to Cavour, Turin, ix September 1860, Affari esteri, 8622, pacco 105, no. ro.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Enrico della Rocca, Autobiografia di un veterano (Bologna, 1897–1898), II, 42–46, passim.

    Google Scholar 

  51. La Moricière to Colonel Gady, Fuligno, 12 September 186o, Bianchi, Stor. doc., VIII, 682.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Same to same, Tolentino, 14 September 186o, ibid., 682. Goyon, having been absent from Rome throughout the summer, due to a dispute with Gramont over the question of authority and responsibility, received instructions from the emperor to return to his post at the same time that instructions were given to the minister of war to increase the garrison (Napoleon III to Thouvenel, Marseilles, 9 September 1860, L. Thouvenel, Le secret, I, 197 ).

    Google Scholar 

  53. S Besson, 168. La Moricière’s version of Gramont’s despatch to Ancona was resumed in his report: “L’Empereur a écrit de Marseille au roi de Sardaigne que si les troupes piémontaises pénètrent sur le territoire pontifical, il sera forcé de s’y opposer” (Rapport du Général La Moricière, Rome, 3 November 186o, pp. 16–17 [extracted from a copy of the report conserved in the library of thelstituto Storico Italiano per l’Etâ Moderna e Contemporanea, Rome]).

    Google Scholar 

  54. By La Moricière’s account, well-organized volunteers advanced before the assembled armies of Sardinia, a force of about I,000 men under Colonel Masi crossing the papal frontier on the morning of 8 September, and having proclaimed the sovereignty of Victor Emmanuel at Città della Pieve, descended upon Orvieto (Rapport du Général La Moricière, ibid., 17).

    Google Scholar 

  55. Gramont to Thouvenel, Rome, 6 October 1860, AMAS, CP, Rome, 1015: 349–351, passim.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Russell to Cowley, 13 September 186o, PRO RP 30/22/104.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Same to same, Foreign Office, 29 October 1860, Despatches, II, 333–335 A revolution, wrote the secretary to Bloomfield, “may be the greatest of calamities; it may be the highest of blessings” (Russell to Bloomfield, London, 11 Sept. 186o, ibid., 176 ).

    Google Scholar 

  58. Russell to Cowley, 22 Sept. 186o, Further correspondence (1861), LXVII, pt. 7, no. 94; AMAE, CP, Rome, 1o15: 272–276; Russell, II, 324–326. “The Roman Catholics,” he concluded, “require that the pope should exercise an independent power; and therefore, it seems, he must be placed in a position in which he is entirely dependent on the troops of a foreign sovereign. His independence is thus made to rest on his being guarded day and night by the arms of France… if such be the pope’s condition, it would be far better that his person should be protected by the troops of an Italian sovereign, who would respect his spiritual authority, and give relief to his temporal subjects.”

    Google Scholar 

  59. D’Azeglio to Cavour, Broadlands, 29 Sept. 1860, Cavour e l’Inghilterra, II, Book I, 134–135. “If,” concluded Palmerston, “the French emperor will be content, as Cowley says he will, with conserving to the pope a circuit of five leagues around Rome, and if the pope will be satisfied with the arrangement, there will be no great harm in his remaining at Rome

    Google Scholar 

  60. and he will then and there be perhaps subject to the influences more suited to us than if he were elsewhere. It is quite clear, moreover, that Florence and not Rome ought to be the capital of United Italy, and it would be more easy to make it so if the pope continued to occupy Rome“ (Palmerston to Russell, 28 Sept. 1860, PRO RP 30/22/21).

    Google Scholar 

  61. Palmerston to Russell, 6 Oct. 1860, PRO RP 30/22/21. Clarendon added to the general air of temporization, insisting to his confidant, Reeve, that Napoleon did not personally wish to increase his Roman garrison. He imagined that the emperor hoped privately Pius would leave the city, since this would give him the occasion to withdraw.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Palmerston to Clarendon, Broadlands, to Oct. 1860, Maxwell, II, 229.

    Google Scholar 

  63. He had a “secret but sure intelligence,” Napoleon told Cowley, that the Queen of Spain planned to send an expedition to Rome. The emperor hoped England would oppose this intervention. Cowley countered by asking how this proposed intervention differed from the French. Embarrassed, Napoleon insisted opinion would cry out against him if he stayed or if he left Rome (F. A. Wellesley. Secrets of the Second Empire [New York and London, 1929)

    Google Scholar 

  64. ).

    Google Scholar 

  65. Palmerston to Russell, 26 Oct, 1860, PRO RP 30/22/21.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Rechberg to Bach, Vienna, 20 Sept. 1860, Copy, HHSA, PA, Spanien, XX, 302: 301.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Benedetti to Gramont, Paris, 16 September 186o, L. Thouvenel, Le secret. I, 202–204. Benedetti, director of political affairs in the Quai d’Orsay, was left in charge during Thouvenel’s absence.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Cavour to Nigra, 24 Sept. 186o, Bollea Una silloge, 345–346.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Thouvenel to Gramont, Paris, 24 Sept. 186o, AMAE, CP, Rome, 1015: 278–280; Livre jaune (186o), 118–119. As he had expected, Thouvenel wrote on 23 September, it was not the emperor’s intention to intervene in the Marches nor in Umbria. The ambassador’s task was to dissuade the pope from leaving Rome: “I know how difficult your task will be but you will deserve as much thanks from Christianity as from France if you succeed in stopping the pope from giving the Revolution and Sardinia the satisfaction they both desire, of finding his place empty in Rome.” (Same to same, Paris, 23 Sept. 1862, L. Thouvenel, Le secret, I, 226 ).

    Google Scholar 

  71. I Bach to Rechberg, Rome, 16 March 186o, Jacini, 22–23; Ferdinand Gregorovius, The Roman journals of Ferdinand Gregorovius, 1852–1874, trans., Mrs. G. W. Hamilton (London, 1907 ), 131.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Mülinen to Rechberg, Paris, 25 September 186o, HHSA, PA, Frankreich, IX, 66, II, fol. 610–611.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Rechberg to Bach, Vienna, 3o Sept. 186o, copy, reserved, HHSA, PA, XX, Spanien, 202: 335.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Victor Emmanuel’s order of the day. Gramont to Thouvenel, Rome, 9 Oct. 186o, AMAE, CP, Rome, r015: 354–355.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Allocution of His Holiness, Pius IX, in Secret Consistory, 28 September 186o, Arch. dip. (1861), I, 88.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Thouvenel to Gramont, 29 Sept. 186o, Livre jaune (1860), 120. Same to same, Paris, 6 Oct. 186o, ibid., 121.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Leti, II, 57; Pepoli to Napoleon III, Perugia, 5 Oct. 186o, La questione romana, I, 52.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Pepoli to Prince Napoleon, 6 Oct. 186o, Comandini, 189.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Prince Napoleon to Nigra, Paris, 12 Oct. 1860, Comandini, 191–192.

    Google Scholar 

  80. Gramont to Thouvenel, Rome, 13 October 186o, L. Thouvenel, Le secret, I, 250–251.

    Google Scholar 

  81. Napoleon III to Randon, 21 Oct. 1860, J. Randon, Mémoires du maréchal Randon (Paris, 1872 ), II, 35.

    Google Scholar 

  82. Thouvenel to Gramont, Paris, 23 Sept. 186o, L. Thouvenel, Le secret, I, 224.

    Google Scholar 

  83. Bach to Rechberg, Rome, so Nov. í86o, Jacini, 37–39.

    Google Scholar 

  84. Same to same, Rome, 27 Oct. z86o, ibid., 33–35, passim.

    Google Scholar 

  85. Pourtales to Schleinitz. Paris, 23 Nov. 186o, APP, II, Book II, 33.

    Google Scholar 

  86. Rayneval to Thouvenel, Turin, 25 Oct. 186o, Thouvenel papers, XVI, fol. 387.

    Google Scholar 

  87. Prince Napoleon to Nigra, Paris, to Oct. 1860, Comandini, 190–191; Bollea, Una silloge, 352–353.

    Google Scholar 

  88. The fullest accounts of these negotiations are in Case, Franco-Italian relations, chapter II; A. J. Whyte, 445.

    Google Scholar 

  89. Cavour to Pantaleoni, Turin, 18 Oct. 1860, Biancha, Stor. doc., VIII, 694–695; La guestione romana, I, 6o - 61.

    Google Scholar 

  90. Gramont to Thouvenel, Rome, to Nov. 1860, L. Thouvenel, Le secret, I, 320.

    Google Scholar 

  91. Case, Franco-Italian relations, 32–33. A. J. Whyte, 445.

    Google Scholar 

  92. Pantaleoni, 170.

    Google Scholar 

  93. Cavour to Prince Napoleon, 24 Nov. 1860, CCN, IV, 276.

    Google Scholar 

  94. Cavour to Vimercati, 20 Dec. 186o, Paola Arcari, La Francia nell’opinione pubblica italiana dal ‘59 al ’70, (Milan, 1940 ), 86–87.

    Google Scholar 

  95. Prince Napoleon to Cavour, Paris, 27 Nov. 186o, Bollea, Una silloge, 371–372. The pessimism of Prince Napoleon was unwarranted, as was the excessive optimism of Drouyn de Lhuys, a moderate conservative in Napoleon’s council of advisors, who was soon prompted to say that Napoleon was moving away from forces which “since the attentat of Orsini had allowed the emperor to be drawn into a path contrary to the traditions of French policy.” (Launay to Cavour, Berlin, 3o Dec. i86o, A fi ari esteri, 8622, pacco 264, no. 283).

    Google Scholar 

  96. Albert Pingaud, “Un projet de désarmement de Napoléon III (1863),” Séances et Travaux de l’Académie des Sciences Morales et Politiques (Paris, Nov.—Dec., 1931), z.

    Google Scholar 

  97. Note of the emperor on the Roman question, undated, AMAE, Mémoires et documents, Rome, 124–132; the published document from the Italian archives bears the notation prima quindicina of December, 186o (La questione romana, I, 132–135 ).

    Google Scholar 

  98. Pingaud, “Un projet de désarmement de Napoléon,” 2–3.

    Google Scholar 

  99. Augustus Craven, Le Prince Albert de Saxe-Cobourg, époux de la Reine Victoria (Paris, 1883), II, 448.

    Google Scholar 

  100. Pingaud, “Un projet de désarmement de Napoléon,” 2–3.

    Google Scholar 

  101. Note of response by Cavour to the Project of Paris, undated, AMAE, Mémoires et documents, Rome 154–157, passim; La questione romana, I, 140–144.

    Google Scholar 

  102. Cavour to Victor Emmanuel, Turin, 16 December 1860, La questione romana, I, 135;

    Google Scholar 

  103. Vimercati to Cavour, 24 Dec. 1860, ibid., 145–146.

    Google Scholar 

  104. Thouvenel to Gramont, Paris, 15 Feb. 1861, 2: 3o PM, telegram, ibid., fol. 364.

    Google Scholar 

  105. Pirri, Questione, 337.

    Google Scholar 

  106. L. E. A. La Guéronnière, La France, Rome, et l’Italie (Paris, 1861 ), Bibliothèque de la chambre des députés, Recueil politique (henceforth cited as Recueil politique), X I.

    Google Scholar 

  107. Meglia to Antonelli, Paris, 23 Feb. 186r, Pirri, Questione, 349–350.

    Google Scholar 

  108. Metternich to Rechberg, Paris, 22 Jan. 1861, HHSA, PA, IX, Frankreich, 69: r18–1x9. S Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  109. Bach to Rechberg, Rome, 26 Feb. 186r, Jacini, 54.

    Google Scholar 

  110. Napoleon III to Randon, 21 Feb. 186r. A. Rastoul, Le maréchal Randon (1795–1871) d’après ses mémoires et des documents inédits (Paris, 2890 ), II, 248–249. If the pope should leave Rome, warned the emperor, “General Goyon will evacuate Rome immediately.”

    Google Scholar 

  111. Pius IX to Napoleon III, 14 February 1862, AMAE, Mémoires et documents, Rome, CXXIV, fol. 16r.

    Google Scholar 

  112. Circular letter of the Cardinal Secretary to the apostolic nuncios, Rome, 25 Feb. 1861, Pirri, Documenti, 205. Count Cavour’s negotiations, asserted Bach, were intended “to lead the Holy See to a transaction based on the renunciation of rights for the promise of advantages too doubtful to deceive anyone” (Bach to Rechberg, Rome, 26 Feb. 2861, HHSA, PA, XX, Vatikan, 203: 263–164 ).

    Google Scholar 

  113. I Discourse of the Prince Napoleon, i March 1861, Recueil politique, XII, 6o - 61.

    Google Scholar 

  114. Odo Russell to Lord John Russell, Rome, zo March 1861, confidential, Noel Blakiston, The Roman question (London, 1962 ), 166.

    Google Scholar 

  115. S Gramont to Thouvenel, Rome, I March 1861, AMAE, CP, Rome, 1017: 4. Odo Russell, nephew of the Earl Russell, British foreign secretary at this time, was placed on assignment at Rome after the Neapolitan kingdom was absorbed by Piedmont-Sardinia.

    Google Scholar 

  116. Thouvenel to Gramont, Paris, 2 March 1861, ibid., fol. 5.

    Google Scholar 

  117. D’Azeglio to Cavour, 4 March 1861, Cavour e Inghilterra, II, book 2, 195. The authentic document proposing that Rome cede the Romagna in return for sovereignty over insular Sardinia is shown in a minute in AMAE, CP, Rome, 1027: Io6–1o8.

    Google Scholar 

  118. Hudson to Russell, Turin, II March 1861, private, PRO RP 30/22/68.

    Google Scholar 

  119. Pius IX in his allocution in the Consistory of 18 March 186r, Arch. dip. (1861), II

    Google Scholar 

  120. -202; Francesco Salata, La storia diplomatica della questione romana (Milan, 2929 ), I, 22; Bianchi, Stor. doc., VIII, 441–442.

    Google Scholar 

  121. Speech of Count Cavour in the Italian chamber of deputies, 25 March 2862, Bianchi, Stor. doc., VIII, 443–445; Arch. dip. (2862), I, 214.

    Google Scholar 

  122. Cavour to Circourt, 2 April 286x, Bollea, Una silloge, 438.

    Google Scholar 

  123. Cavour to Vimercati, 2 April 2862, ibid., 438.

    Google Scholar 

  124. Vimercati to Cavour, 8 April 1861, Documenti diplomatici italiani, prima serie —1861–187o, I (8 Jan.-31 Dec. 1861), (henceforth cited as DDI), Ed., Walter Maturi, Commissione per la pubblicazione dei documenti diplomatici (Rome, 2952), 85–86. It was the duty of Italy, wrote Prince Napoleon, to put pressure on France to withdraw (Prince Napoleon to Cavour, 23 April 1861, Comandini, 218; Chiala, IV, 211–212;

    Google Scholar 

  125. Bollea, Una silloge, 443–445. See Case, Franco-Italian relations, 80.) The proposals of the Prince did not differ substantially from Thouvenel’s:

    Google Scholar 

  126. Direct arrangement concluded between France and Italy.

    Google Scholar 

  127. France, assured of the pope’s security, would withdraw from Rome.

    Google Scholar 

  128. Italy would agree to prevent all attacks against the present territory of the pope.

    Google Scholar 

  129. Italy would raise no objections to the formation of a papal army composed of foreign Catholics, not to exceed io,000 men (same to same, ibid.).

    Google Scholar 

  130. P. Vayra, Il principe Napoleone e l’Italia (Turin, 1891 ), 65.

    Google Scholar 

  131. Napoleon III to Prince Napoleon, Paris, 13 April 1861, Comandini, 216; Bollea, Una silloge, 442–443.

    Google Scholar 

  132. Cavour to Prince Napoleon, 17 April 1861, Chiala, VI, 704.

    Google Scholar 

  133. Vimercati to Cavour, Paris, 4 May 1861, DDI, Ist series, I, Izo.

    Google Scholar 

  134. Same to same. Paris, 7 May 1861, ibid., 121.

    Google Scholar 

  135. Vimercati to Cavour, Paris, Ir May 1861, DDI, Ist series, I, 124–125.

    Google Scholar 

  136. Vimercati to Cavour, Paris, II May 1861, DDI, Ist series, I, 124–125. On the loth of the month, the day before notifying Cavour of the emperor’s proposals, Vimercati had written to a friend, Castelli, that “we have come to a settlement, and on the loth of next month the recognition of Italy by France will be an accomplished fact, and the withdrawal of the Roman garrison will have already commenced” (A. J. Whyte, 46o ).

    Google Scholar 

  137. Same to same, 12 May 1861, La qustione romana, II, 193.

    Google Scholar 

  138. Same to same, Paris, 17 May 1861, DDI, 1st series, I, 134; zo May 1861, ibid., 136. Same to same, 20 May 1861, ibid., 136.

    Google Scholar 

  139. Same to same, 23 May 1861, La questione romana, II, 218–219. Cavour to Vimercati, Turin, 27 May 1861, DDI, 1st series, I, 143–144

    Google Scholar 

  140. Same to same, 27 May 1861, La questione romana, II, 232. Vimercati to Cavour, 28 May 1861, DDI, 1st series, I, 149.

    Google Scholar 

  141. It was expected that the French chambers would not adjourn until the loth of the month, since the minister of finance had been late in introducing his budget (Vimercati to Cavour, 23 May 1861, ibid., 142).

    Google Scholar 

  142. Vimercati to Cavour, 3 June 1861, DDI, 1st series, I, 154.

    Google Scholar 

  143. Ibid. Mori, I, 2.

    Google Scholar 

  144. Hudson to Russell, Turin, 9 May 1861, private, PRO RP 3o/22/68, fol. 132. a Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  145. Hudson to Russell, Turin, 24 May 1861, private, ibid., fols. 134–135.

    Google Scholar 

  146. Same to same, Turin, 9 May 1861, private, ibid., 132.

    Google Scholar 

  147. Urban, 594–595.

    Google Scholar 

  148. Benson and Esher, III, fn. I, 441.

    Google Scholar 

  149. Russell to Victoria, 6 June 1861, ibid., 443.

    Google Scholar 

  150. Mon to Collantes, Paris, 2 June 1861, Arch. dip. (1862), II, 347.

    Google Scholar 

  151. Flores to Collantes, Rome, 2 March 1861, ibid., 325.

    Google Scholar 

  152. Bach to Rechberg, Rome, 23 March 186r, Jacini, 57–58.

    Google Scholar 

  153. Bach to Rechberg, Rome, 23 March 1861, HHSA, PA, Spanien, XX, 203: 197.

    Google Scholar 

  154. Crivelli to Rechberg, Madrid, 6 April r861, ibid., 203: 43.

    Google Scholar 

  155. Ibid., fol. 44.

    Google Scholar 

  156. Rechberg to Metternich, Vienna, 17 March 1861, ibid., IX, 71, I—IV, fol. 230.

    Google Scholar 

  157. Mon to Collantes, Paris, 3o March 1861, Arch. dip. (1862), II, 333–334.

    Google Scholar 

  158. Allyon to Collantes, Vienna, 2 April 1861, ibid., 335.

    Google Scholar 

  159. Metternich to Rechberg, Paris, 12 April 1861, confidential, HHSA, PA, IX, Frankreich, 69: 484–490, passim.

    Google Scholar 

  160. Rechberg to Metternich, Vienna, 14 April 1861, ibid., IX, Frankreich, 71: 359–364, passim.

    Google Scholar 

  161. Same to same, Vienna, 20 April 1861, confidential, ibid., fol. 367–369.

    Google Scholar 

  162. Mon to Collantes, Paris, 18 April 1861, Arch. dip., (1862), 339;

    Google Scholar 

  163. Collantes to Mon, Aranjuez, 7 May 1861, ibid., 344–345.

    Google Scholar 

  164. Mon to Thouvenel, 28 May 1861, Livre jaune (1861), 24–26.

    Google Scholar 

  165. Metternich to Thouvenel, 28 May 186r, ibid., 26–28.

    Google Scholar 

  166. Metternich to Rechberg, Paris, 30 May 1861, HHSA, PA, IX, Frankreich 69: 612–614.

    Google Scholar 

  167. The ideas expressed by M. Mon,“ wrote Thouvenel, ”have often been the subject of conversations that I have had with him and Prince Metternich, and I had thought to demonstrate to him the narrow connection which exists between the ruling of the Roman question and the regularization of the present state of things in Italy“ (Thouvenel to Barrot, Paris, 28 May 186r, AMAE, CP, Espagne, 858: 356–358.

    Google Scholar 

  168. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  169. Barrot to Thouvenel, Madrid, 5 June 186r, private letter, Thouvenel papers, III, fols. 158162, passim.

    Google Scholar 

  170. Thouvenel to Barrot, Paris, 11 June 1861, AMAE, CP, Espagne, 858: 383.

    Google Scholar 

  171. Thouvenel to the ambassadors of Spain and Austria, Paris, 6 June 1861, Livre jaune (1861), 28–30.

    Google Scholar 

  172. Collantes to Mon, 25 June 1861, Arch. dip. (1861), III, 294.

    Google Scholar 

  173. Gramont to Thouvenel, Rome, 22 June 1861, Livre jaune (1861), 3o - 31.

    Google Scholar 

  174. Rechberg to Metternich, Vienna, 16 June 186r, Arch. dip. (1861), III, 113–115.

    Google Scholar 

  175. Mensdorff to Ottenfels, Vienna, 12 Oct. 2864, copy, HHSA, PA, IX, Frankreich, 8o: 332.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. West Virginia University, USA

    Ivan Scott

Authors
  1. Ivan Scott
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1969 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Scott, I. (1969). The Unification of Italy. In: The Roman Question and the Powers, 1848–1865. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-7541-6_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-7541-6_5

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-017-0015-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-015-7541-6

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation