Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Revival of Democracy

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

  • 49 Accesses

Abstract

The increased revolutionary temperament in Italy placed upon France and England a great obligation to seek a settlement on the broad question of Italy. England’s role in this regard was conducted simultaneously at Vienna and Paris for a solution favorable to the Italians, at the cost of both the papacy and Austria. The issue of power complicated these clear lines the English had settled upon nonetheless, for if the Palmerston government distrusted French motives toward self-aggrandizement, it also feared that the patience of Austria would, as in 1859, vanish at a critical moment, and thus precipitate a general war from the area of northern Italy. Palmerston’s anxiety was never greater than in December 1861 when he predicted that France would initiate a general war in the spring, integrate its military efforts with the revolutionary movements in Italy and Hungary, at a moment when England would (Palmerston thought inevitably) fall into conflict with the Federal Government in America. He recognized that Ricasoli would soon fall from power, but showed no great concern with this prospect, since the succession of Rattazzi promised a better avenue for resolving the Italian question, by turning the eyes of the patriots from Rome to some other sector. If Ricasoli had refused to exchange the island of Sardinia for either Rome or Venice, Palmerston believed Rattazzi would agree to such a trade. To salvage some of Austria’s declining power, to preserve it from a war which it could not finance and could not win, Palmerston also returned to the idea of selling Venetia.1 Italian problems, by this view, became entangled with the Eastern question, and Palmerston began to meditate upon a project which would keep the peace in Europe and yet solve the most inflamed of the national questions.

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. Palmerston to Russell, 94 Piccadilly, 3o December 186r, copy, PRO, FO 519/199.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Cowley to Russell, Paris, is March 1862, British parliamentary papers, Papers respecting the French occupation o/ Rome (1862), LXIII, 481; Arch. dip. (1863), I.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Same to same, Paris, 14 March 1862, ibid.; FO 27/1435/329.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Russell to Cowley, F.O., 17 March 1862, Thouvenel papers, XVII, 28–29.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Cowley to Russell, 20 March 1862, FO 27/1435/374.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Russell to Cowley, 22 March 1862, Pirri, Questione, 483.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Cowley to Russell, Paris, 28 March 1862, Papers respecting the French occupation of Rome (1862), LXIII, 489.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Russell to Cowley, 2 April 1862, Arch. dip. (1863), I, 234-235.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Gramont to Thouvenel, Vienna, I May 1862, confidential and secret, AMAE, CP, Autriche, 481: 200.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Apponyi to Rechberg, London, 18 Feb. 1862, telegram, HHSA, PA, VIII, England, 57: 158.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Gorchakov to Budberg, Tzarskoe-Selo, 20 June 1862, Thouvenel papers, XIV, fois

    Google Scholar 

  12. Thun to Rechberg. St. Petersburg, 16/4 Jan. 1862, HHSA, PA, X, Russland, 52: 44.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Rechberg to Metternich, Vienna, 22 January 1862, confidential, ibid., I X, Frankreich, 73: 35.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Thouvenel to Fournier, Paris, 18 Feb. 1862, AMAE, CP, Russe, 226: 12.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Flahault to Thouvenel, London, zo March 1862, AMAE, CP, Angleterre, 721: 97.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Apponyi to Rechberg, London, 18 Feb. 1862, telegram, HHSA, PA, VIII, England, 57: 158.

    Google Scholar 

  17. PRO RP 30/22/21. The first efforts for the Austrian project were raised by Palmerston and Russell in October 2860, when the sale of Venetia was originally considered as a solution for the Italian question. Clarendon endorsed its purpose the next January, describing its necessity on three heads: sale of Venetia, internal reform of the Austrian empire, Austria’s avoidance of “aggressive errors” which had led to the war of 1859 (Clarendon to Russell, 16 January, 1861, Clarendon papers, C 104)•

    Google Scholar 

  18. Gramont to Thouvenel, Vienna, 1 May 1862, confidential and secret, AMAE, CP, Autriche, 481: 200; L. Thouvenel, Le secret, II, 287–288.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Memoir of Klindworth, Vienna, 31 March 1862, AMAS, CP, Autriche, 481: 203–206; L. Thouvenel, Le secret, II, 287–288.

    Google Scholar 

  20. De Lucca to Antonelli, 13 April 1862, Pirri, Questione, 484-485.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Antonelli to Chigi, 13 May 1862, ibid., 491.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Bastgen, II, 231–234, passim.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Gramont to Thouvenel, Vienna, 23 April 1862, confidential, L. Thouvenel, Le secret, II, 284.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Same to same, Vienna, 23 April 1862, confidential, AMAE, CP, Autriche, 481: 186.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Flahault to Thouvenel, London, 2 May 1862, AMAE, CP, Angleterre, 721: 17–18. Thouvenel heard some further demands from Cowley on the subject of Rome. The pope, he replied early in May, might be told that France would evacuate Rome in two years. Palmerston expressed shock with this dilatory suggestion. “Two years, ” he wrote, “Thouvenel might as well say it would be in twenty years as to any effect it can have on the pope” (Palmerston to Russell, 7 May 1862, PRO RP 30/22/22).

    Google Scholar 

  26. territorial status quo, (2) transfer to Italy of the greater part of the papal debt, (3) contributions by the powers of Europe to the civil list of the Holy Father, (4) internal reforms by the Holy Father [011ivier, V, 471].

    Google Scholar 

  27. Bellune to Thouvenel, Rome, 10 May 1862, AMAE, CP, Rome, 1020: 32.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Metternich to Rechberg, Paris, 2 May 1862, HHSA, PA IX, Frankreich, 72: 75.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Same to same, Paris, io May 1862, ibid., 84–87; 209–213.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Metternich’s compte-rendu of Hübner’s audience with Napoleon III, ibid., 36-37.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Rechberg to Metternich, Vienna, 20 May 1862, private and confidential, ibid., 73: 302–304.

    Google Scholar 

  32. See chapter VIII for Russell’s reception of the French congress proposal of 1863.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Napoleon III to Thouvenel, 20 May 1862, AMAE, CP, Rome, Zozo: 115–118; Staatsarchiv (1863), IV, 20–22.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Thouvenel to Gramont, Paris, 24 May 1862, L. Thouvenel, Le secret, II, 303. Legitimists and Orleanists alike, wrote the court gossip, Prosper Mérimée, had become papalists, “papa-lists conspiring with fanatics” (Prosper Mérimée to the countess Montijo, Paris, 28 April 1862, P. Mérimée, Prosper Mérimée a la comtesse de Montijo, I, zio).

    Google Scholar 

  35. Vimercati to Rattazzi, Paris, 29 May 1862, DDI, 1st series, II, 385–386; “Sulla via di Roma, da Aspromonte a Mentana,” (henceforth cited as Sulla via di Roma), anonymous, Nuova antologia di lettere, scienze, ed arti, 4th series (January 1900), LXXXV, 13–14.

    Google Scholar 

  36. J. Durieux, Le ministre Pierre Magne, 1806–1879, d’après ses lettres et ses souvenirs (Paris, 1929), II, 35-36, 38.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Vimercati to Rattazzi, Paris, 29 May 1862, DDI, Ist series, II, 385-386.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Nigra to Durando, Paris, 29 May 1862, ibid., 383.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Metternich to Rechberg, Paris, 9 June 1862, HHSA, PA, IX, Frankreich, 72: 227–229.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Bach to Rechberg, Rome, 14 June 1862, ibid., 74: 417–418; Jacini, 90–91. “You will,” Thouvenel instructed La Valette, “leave the impression that if they oppose you as categorically as in the past by their theory of immobility, the government of the emperor would have to act accordingly; and that if unfortunately it became certain that these efforts for persuading the Holy Father to accept a transaction would become henceforth useless, it would be necessary, while safeguarding as much as possible the interests which up to now it has protected by its solicitude, to consider abandoning a situation, which by being prolonged beyond a certain point would falsify its policy and would only serve to produce the greatest disorder” (Thouvenel to La Valette, Paris, 3o May 1862, Moniteur, 25 Sept. 1862). The letter of the foreign minister to the ambassador which appeared in the Livre jaune the next year carried the date 31 May, a change of dates caused by a change of instructions in the last phase of drafting the four points.

    Google Scholar 

  41. La Valette to Thouvenel, Rome, 17 June 1862, telegram, AMAE, CP, Rome, ro2o: 203, 214. The pope’s remarks were important phraseology. It was curt advice used against him later when the Italians were indeed consulted first, and a convention without the pope’s knowledge established between France and Italy. “It is thus to Piedmont,” Pius said in 1862, “that you must first address yourself. After you will have treated with her, I do not promise to accept the terms of the convention that you will have concluded, but I would have to examine them seriously.” This offhand dismissal of their efforts angered the liberals greatly in 1862; but two years later it offered a providential excuse for the moderate conservatives who had decided to bypass the pope.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Thouvenel to La Valette, Paris, 22 June 1862, telegram, ibid., 231.

    Google Scholar 

  43. La Valette to Thouvenel, Rome, 24 June 1862, Livre jaune (1862), Io.

    Google Scholar 

  44. “I thought I should remark,” Metternich wrote to his government, “that if they demanded too much at Rome it would be a mistake — it would be to wish to bring on arefusal” (Metternich to Rechberg, Paris, 13 June 1862, HHSA, PA, IX, Frankreich, 74: 250-252).

    Google Scholar 

  45. Depretis to Garibaldi, ro February 1862, Archivio Depretis, series I, Busta 4, fasc. II (Archivio Centrale dello Stato, Rome).

    Google Scholar 

  46. Denis Mack Smith, Garibaldi, a great life in brief (New York, 1956). 123–126. See also Mori, I, 86–105, passim.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Durando’s circular letter to his diplomatic representatives abroad, Naples, 19 May 1862, DDI, 1st series, II, 362: Arch. dip. (1863), I, 125.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Napoleon III to Victor Emmanuel II, Paris, ro May 1862, DDI, Ist series, II, 346.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Durando’s note and quotations on Prince Napoleon’s visit to Naples, Episodi, 222–223.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Thouvenel assured the nuncio, Chigi, that France would maintain the status quo (Chigi to Antonelli, Paris, 18 May 1862, Pirri, Questione, 479). Eugenie made the contents of Napoleon’s letter to Victor Emmanuel known to Metternich (C. W. Hallberg, Franz-Joseph and Napoleon 111, 1852–1864, a study of Austro-French relations [New York, 1955], 276).

    Google Scholar 

  51. Smith, 127–128.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Rattazzi to Garibaldi, date unknown, Luzio, 169–170.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Luzio, 170.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Russell to Hudson, 26 May 1862, Affari esteri, 772, pacco 134.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Thouvenel to La Valette, Paris, 12 May 1862, G. Rothan, La France et sa politique en 1867 (Paris, 1887), II, 53.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Durando to Teccio di Bayo, 8 July 1862, DDI, 1st series, II, 512.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Proclamation of Garibaldi, end of July 1862, Arch. dip. (1863), I, 135.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Rattazzi to Victor Emmanuel, Turin, 2 August 1862, Luzio, 146–147.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Proclamation of Victor Emmanuel, 3 August 1862, Arch. dip. (1863), I, 135–136; 138139; G. Pasolini, Memoir of Count Giuseppe Pasolini, trans., the Dowager Countess Dalhousie (London, 1885), 231–232; Durando to his agents abroad, Turin, 3 August 1862, DDI, 1st series, III, 5.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Rattazzi to Teccio di Bayo, 3 August 1862, DDI, 1st series, III, 4.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Proclamation of Garibaldi to take arms against Rome, 24 August 1862, Arch. dip. (1863), I, 141–142.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Chigi to Antonelli, Paris, 16 August 1862, De Lucca to Antonelli, Vienna, 22 September 1862, Pirri, Questione, 515–516.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Chigi to Antonelli, Paris, 29 August 1862, ibid., 525.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Russell to Cowley, London, 7 August 2862, AMAE, CP, Angleterre, 722, 42.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Minute by Lord Clarendon, undated, 1862, Clarendon papers, 555.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Pepoli to Rattazzi, Paris, 16 August 1862, Sulla via di Roma, 24.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Nigra to Rattazzi, Paris, 15 August 1862, Luzio, 216. The Italians were as slow as the French in making up their minds, hoping that they could wring concessions from France without taking an unpopular step as the necessary price. Only in its sittings of 2–5 September did the king’s council decide definitively to carry out legal proceedings against the patriot who had defied the king’s proclamation of 3 August (Verbali dei ministri, 1861–1867, I, 31–32).

    Google Scholar 

  68. Durando to Thouvenel, Turin, 11 August 1862, Thouvenel papers, IV, 343; Sulla via di Roma, 23; Episodi, 315–316; DDI, 1st series, III, 226.

    Google Scholar 

  69. The English cabinet betrayed no inclination to support Italy, and had but little interest in a congress, the Greek movement in particular making Palmerston suspect Italy’s motives in that question (D’Azeglio to Durando, 4 August 1862, DDI, 1st series, III, 6–7) Russia could not be stirred from its neutrality for these same reasons. It is also clear in the correspondence of Di Sonnaz’s special mission to St. Petersburg that it was not Italy’s official policy to contest France’s strong influence at the Russian court, but rather that it was Italian policy to strengthen the understanding Russia had obtained earlier with France whereby a general intervention of the powers in the Italian question would not be allowed. The maintenance of the principle of nonintervention, and not the acquisition of Rome, was Italy’s policy, a condition of security for Italy which would allow it to profit from events according to how they might occur; but a condition which would enhance Italy’s international reputation. Russia’s recognition of Italy, said Gorchakov, was based upon the conviction that Italy could maintain a regular order. Garibaldi’s challenge was the acid test for a well-constituted government, a touchstone for Italy’s future development, perhaps an opportunity, observed Gorchakov: “pour vous fournir l’occasion de trancher d’un coup la question et prendre position en Europe.” But France’s efforts, warned Gorchakov, already made at St. Petersburg on behalf of Italy, made it impossible for Russia to have either a pro-Italian or an anti-French policy (Di Sonnaz to Durando, St. Petersburg, 16/4 August /862, confidential, The Mission of S. E. it generale Ettore di Sonnaz to St. Petersburg, August 1862, Affari esteri).

    Google Scholar 

  70. Pepoli to Rattazzi, Paris, 16 August 1862, Sulla via di Roma, 24.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Nigra to Rattazzi, Paris, 15 August 1862, Luzio, 216.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Project of a convention with France, 22 August 1862, Durando papers, 16/126/46.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Episodi, 269–276, passim.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Giuseppe Garibaldi, Autobiography, authorized translation, A. Werner (London, 1889), II, 247.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Thouvenel to Flahault, Paris, 26 August 1862, AMAE, CP, Angleterre, 722: 8o-81.

    Google Scholar 

  76. The measure of Russell’s anxiety was revealed when he asked the Admiralty for an increase for the Mediterranean fleet; it was also a measure of England’s farflung interests when Sea Lord Somerset dissented at once, citing Britain’s need for frigates in every quarter of the globe (Somerset to Russell, private, 24 August 1862, PRO RP 3o/22/24.)

    Google Scholar 

  77. Montebello to Thouvenel, St. Petersburg, 25 August 1862, AMAE, CP, Russe, 226: 215–216; Diary of Count Oldoini, minister to Russia, as cited by G. Berti, Russia e stati italiani nel Risorgimento (Turin, 1957), 825.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Nigra to Rattazzi, 28 August 1862, Sulla via di Roma, 27.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Metternich to Rechberg, Paris, 16 August 1862, HHSA, IX, Frankreich, 74. Bach obtained assurances from the Vatican that neither Antonelli nor the pope had charged Nardi with a special mission, but the elusiveness of this response on the part of the papacy must be considered (Bach to Rechberg, Rome, 7 September 1862, HHSA, XI, Vatikan, 2o4: 321).

    Google Scholar 

  80. Metternich to Rechberg, Paris, 4 September 1862, ibid., IX, Frankreich, 73: 135-140, passim.

    Google Scholar 

  81. Same to same, ibid., 139–140.

    Google Scholar 

  82. Nigra to Durando, Paris, 3o Aug. 1862, Episodi, 318–319.

    Google Scholar 

  83. Nigra to Durando, 2 Sept. 1862, A. Colombo, “La questione romana nei carteggi NigraDurando,” Il Risorgimento italiano, 3rd series (Turin, 1929), XXII, 529–530.

    Google Scholar 

  84. Viel Castel, Mémoires du comte Horace de Viel Castel sur le règne de Napoléon III (Paris, 1884), VI, 188.

    Google Scholar 

  85. Nigra to Durando, Paris, 2 Sept. 1862, Colombo, 529-530.

    Google Scholar 

  86. Sulla via di Roma, 27–28.

    Google Scholar 

  87. Prince Napoleon to Rattazzi, Paris, 1 Sept. 1862, Luzio, 276.

    Google Scholar 

  88. Nigra to Durando, Paris, 1 Sept. 1862, telegram, Durando papers, 16/127/121.

    Google Scholar 

  89. Thouvenel to Flahault, Paris, r Sept. 1862, L. Thouvenel, Le secret, II, 380.

    Google Scholar 

  90. Mülinen to Rechberg, Paris, 1 Sept. 1862, secret, no. 5o, A—C, HHSA, PA, IX, Frankreich, 73: roe-114, passim.

    Google Scholar 

  91. Same to same, ibid., 127.

    Google Scholar 

  92. Thouvenel to Flahault, Paris, 1 Sept. 1862, L. Thouvenel, Le secret, II, 380.

    Google Scholar 

  93. Nigra to Rattazzi, Paris, 6 Sept. 1862, private, Durando papers, 16/127/126.

    Google Scholar 

  94. Same to same, Paris, 4 Sept. 1862, Colombo, 534. The rumor, as subsequent events showed, was incorrect (Maurain, Baroche ministre de Napoléon III, d’après ses papiers inédits [Paris, 1936], 242, no. 2), but its effect upon the Italians was not less important because not true.

    Google Scholar 

  95. Durando to Nigra, 2 Sept. 1862, Colombo, 532–533.

    Google Scholar 

  96. Rattazzi to Victor Emmanuel, 8 September 1862, Luzio, 148–149.

    Google Scholar 

  97. Nigra to Durando, Io Sept. 1862, Colombo, 562–563.

    Google Scholar 

  98. Durando to Nigra, II Sept. 1862, ibid.,563.

    Google Scholar 

  99. Nigra to Durando, Paris, 14 Sept. 1862, ibid., 539.

    Google Scholar 

  100. Durando’s circular letter to his repensentatives abroad, Turin, 10 Sept. 1862, AMAE, CP, Italie, 555: 127–128; Arch. dip. (1863), I, 142–144; Staatsarchiv (1863), IV, 34-35; Bastgen, II, 171–173; Livre jaune, (1862), 47–48.

    Google Scholar 

  101. Thouvenel to Gramont, Paris, 25 Sept. 2862, L. Thouvenel, Le secret. II, 407.

    Google Scholar 

  102. Thouvenel to Massignac, Paris, 21 Sept. 2862, AMAS, CP, Italie, 555: 149.

    Google Scholar 

  103. Thouvenel to La Valette, Paris, 24 Sept. 1862, ibid., Rome, 1021: 210. The king of Italy inquired if the princess Mathilda, vacationing at Lake Maggiore, might come to Turin for a visit (Thouvenel to Massignac, Paris, 25 Sept. 1862, ibid., Italie, 555: 134). The princess, an extreme antipapalist, had taken up the Italian cause, if only for that reason, establishing relations with La Valette, Benedetti and Thouvenel (Joachim Kühn, La Princesse Mathilde, 1820–1904, d’après des papiers de la famille royale de Wurtemberg et autres documents inédits, trans, J C Guidau [Paris, 1935], 216).

    Google Scholar 

  104. Thouvenel to Massignac, Paris, 21 Sept. 1862, AMAE, CP, Italie, 555: 249

    Google Scholar 

  105. Massignac to Thouvenel, Turin, 19 Sept. 1862, Thouvenel papers, IV, 349

    Google Scholar 

  106. Apponyi to Rechberg, London, 24 Sept. 1862, HHSA, PA, VIII, England, 57: 199–204, passim.

    Google Scholar 

  107. Russell to Palmerston, 16 Sept. 1862, Palmerston papers. England demonstrated an immediate concern for the cabinet crises in France and Italy. Where Russia had assumed a noncommittal attitude towards Durando’s circular, England was positive, promising that an early communication would be made to Paris (Episodi, 329–333; Oldoini to Durando, 20 Sept. 1862, St. Petersburg, Durando papers, 16/127/133).

    Google Scholar 

  108. Palmerston to Russell, 13 Sept. 1862, Later Correspondence, II, 280.

    Google Scholar 

  109. Flahault to Palmerston, private, 18 Sept. 1862, Palmerston papers. The plight of the pope, Russell wrote Palmerston, placed Napoleon in a stronger position than before for putting off an evacuation. “I hope to see Odo today,” wrote the foreign secretary, “and ask him whether it is possible to induce the pope to leave Rome for a time to go to Malta. Small chance I feel.” (Russell to Palmerston, 22 Sept. 1862, ibid.).

    Google Scholar 

  110. Palmerston to Flahault, Broadlands, 22 Sept. 1862, ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  111. Flahault to Palmerston, 24 Sept. 1862, ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  112. Russell to Cowley, F.O., 29 Sept. 1862, Thouvenel papers, XVII, 3o-33, passim.

    Google Scholar 

  113. Thouvenel to Flahault, Paris, 4 Oct. 186z, L. Thouvenel, Le secret, II, 424.

    Google Scholar 

  114. Flahault to Palmerston, 9 October 2862, ibid., 434–435. Palmerston gratified Flahault’s desire in this respect, for the prime minister advised D’Azeglio that the English note on Rome would be suspended in order not to further agitate the French ministers upon the return of Napoleon from Biarritz (D’Azeglio to Durando, London, 7 October 1862, DDI, 1st series, III, III).

    Google Scholar 

  115. English policy on Italy, said Palmerston, was equivalent to the policy it held for Spain: the preservation of their independence, because this was a way to prevent the growth of French power in the Mediterranean. Portugal must remain England’s ally, because in case of war between France and England, this country could help maintain England’s naval supremacy. It was clear, therefore, in this report of Palmerston’s thought, that radicalism in Italy only entrenched French influence in the peninsula, provoked an expansion of French military power and weakened incidentally the hegemony English cruisers exercised over the weak peninsulas of southern Europe (D’Azeglio to Durando, Broadlands, 3 October 1862, confidential, DDI, ist series, III, 109).

    Google Scholar 

  116. Nigra to Thouvenel, 14 Sept, 1862, Demaria, 257.

    Google Scholar 

  117. Russell to Palmerston, 22 Sept. 1862, Palmerston papers.

    Google Scholar 

  118. Benedetti to Thouvenel, Turin, undated, Thouvenel papers, IV, 358–359.

    Google Scholar 

  119. Durando to Nigra, Turin, 8 Oct. 1862, Episodi, 339–340; Arch. dip. (1863), I, 146–147.

    Google Scholar 

  120. Prince Napoleon and Princess Mathilda arrived at Genoa on 24 September, accompanied thereafter to Turin by Benedetti (Rattazzi to La Marmora, 25 Sept. 1862, Luzio, 312; Benedetti to Thouvenel, Turin, 24 Sept. 1862, telegram. AMAE, CP, Italie, 555: 350).

    Google Scholar 

  121. Rattazzi to La Marmora, 7 Oct. 1862, Luzio, 314.

    Google Scholar 

  122. In view of the “tacit approbation that the parliament and public opinion” had given “at other times to acts of this nature,” it was proposed that a decree be prepared, expressing to Italy and to Europe “your [Victor Emmanuel’s] magnanimity and the force of your government” (Benedetti to Thouvenel, Turin, 6 Oct. 3862, AMAE, CP, Italie, 555: 192).

    Google Scholar 

  123. Same to same, Turin, 7 Oct, 3862, ibid., 196.

    Google Scholar 

  124. Durando to Nigra, Turin, 8 Oct. 1862, ibid., 198–20o.

    Google Scholar 

  125. Nigra to Durando, Paris, 10 Oct. 1862, telegram, Durando papers, 16/127/137.

    Google Scholar 

  126. Benedetti’s private correspondence with Thouvenel suggests that the ambassador was no better informed of the note’s actual formation than was the foreign minister (Benedetti to Thouvenel, Turin, 6 Oct. 1862, Thouvenel papers, IV, 362–363).

    Google Scholar 

  127. Cowley to Russell, Paris, without date, confidential, Clarendon papers, C 87: 358-359. S Nigra to Durando, Paris, sr Oct. 1862, telegram, Durando papers, 16/127/139

    Google Scholar 

  128. L. Thouvenel, Pages d’histoire, 391–395.

    Google Scholar 

  129. Salomon, 46–57, Passim. Thouvenel to Flahault, Paris, i Sept. 1862, L. Thouvenel, Le secret, II, 38 1- 383.

    Google Scholar 

  130. R. Schnerb, Rouher et le Second Empire (Paris, 1931), 128.

    Google Scholar 

  131. Metternich to Rechberg, Paris, z Oct, 1862, HHSA, PA, IX, Frankreich, 73: 15.

    Google Scholar 

  132. Mérimée to Panizzi, Paris, 25 April 1860, P. Mérimée, Lettres it M. Panizzi, 185o-187o, ed., Louis Fagan (Paris, 1881), I, 89. “The unity of Italy is a danger for France,” declared the Marquis de la Rochejaquelein, and a permanent threat to both France and Austria. “This new England,” he said, would control the seas around it; Italy “would destroy the truth of an old proverb: `the Mediterranean ought to be a French lake’ ” (Marquis de la Rochejaquelein, “L’Unité de l’Italie est-elle un danger pour la France” [Recueil politique, XIX, no. 222, 12–13]). G. Dethan, “Napoléon III et l’opinion française devant la question romaine (18602870),” Extrait de la Revue d’histoire diplomatique (April—June 1958), no. 2: 7–9, passim.

    Google Scholar 

  133. Napoleon III to Randon, 22 Sept. 1862, Rastoul, 267.

    Google Scholar 

  134. Walewski to Napoleon III, z6 Sept. 1862, Bernardy, Un fils de Napoléon, 691–693.

    Google Scholar 

  135. If Drouyn could not accept the emperor’s program, Walewski wrote Napoleon on 24 September, he would call on La Tour d’Auvergne (Walewski to Napoleon III, 24 Sept. 1862, ibid., 690).

    Google Scholar 

  136. Schnerb, too. Thouvenel to Flahault, Paris, 1 Sept. 1862, L. Thouvenel, Le secret, II, 381.

    Google Scholar 

  137. Mülinen to Rechberg, Paris, 14 Oct. 1862, cited by Salomon, 70.

    Google Scholar 

  138. Flahault to Palmerston, 9 Oct. 1862, L. Thouvenel, Le secret, II, 435. The Italian government pressed the English cabinet to make a circular note of Russell’s despatch of 29 September. Palmerston refused, “fearing the evils of such a step” (D’Azeglio to Durando, London, 7 Oct. 1862, telegram, Durando papers, 16/127/135.

    Google Scholar 

  139. Walewski to Napoleon III, to Oct. 1862. Bernardy, Un fils de Napoléon, 694–695.

    Google Scholar 

  140. Mülinen to Rechberg, Paris, 13 Oct. 1862, HHSA, PA, IX, Frankreich, 73: 38.

    Google Scholar 

  141. Same to same, Paris, 14 Oct. 1862, ibid., 67–68.

    Google Scholar 

  142. Notes by the minister Baroche on the ministerial crisis of 1862, Baroche papers, 1025: 22–23.

    Google Scholar 

  143. Thouvenel to Flahault, Paris, 13 Oct. 1862, L. Thouvenel, Le secret, II, 427–428.

    Google Scholar 

  144. Bernardy, Un fils de Napoléon, 696.

    Google Scholar 

  145. Napoleon III to Thouvenel, St. Cloud, 15 Oct. 1862, L. Thouvenel, Le secret, II, 438-439; Moniteur, 19 Oct. 1862.

    Google Scholar 

  146. Viel Castel’s account is probably too simple to be correct: “Morny seems to wish to resign. He pretends he is not able to abandon his friends.” Cited by L. Thouvenel, Le secret, II, 431.

    Google Scholar 

  147. Mülinen to Rechberg. Paris, 14 Oct. 1862, HHSA, PA, IX, Frankreich, 73: 58.

    Google Scholar 

  148. Cowley to Russell, Paris, 18 Oct. 1862, most confidential, Palmerston papers. Drouyn’s other condition was of the same character: he would not accept Thouvenel’s nomination as ambassador to London, which was the emperor’s desire.

    Google Scholar 

  149. Schnerb, 129. Rouher could not evidently bring himself to use the word “abandon,” but his words and his actions amounted to desertion.

    Google Scholar 

  150. Circular letter of Drouyn de Lhuys to his representatives abroad, Paris, 18 Oct. 1862, Livre jaune (1862), 15; Arch. dip. (5863), I, 196–197.

    Google Scholar 

  151. Nigra to Durando, 19 Oct. 1862, Colombo, 571.

    Google Scholar 

  152. Drouyn to Massignac, 26 Oct. 1862, AMAE, CP, Italie, 555: 246-251.

    Google Scholar 

  153. Antonelli to Chigi, Rome, 21 Oct. 1862, Pirri, Questione, 544•

    Google Scholar 

  154. Chigi to Antonelli, Paris, 21 Oct. 1862,ibid., 545. But this was to be countered by Drouyn’s remark to Reuss, the Prussian ambassador, that Napoleon would never abandon the pope so long as His Holiness was not reconciled with Italy (Reuss to Bismarck, Paris, 27 Oct. 1862, APP, III, 61–6z).

    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 Revival of Democracy. In: The Roman Question and the Powers, 1848–1865. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-7541-6_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-7541-6_7

  • 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